Printable View
Tamron announced a new lens in progress late last week when I was out of town, certainly looks interesting for the spotting and airshow application provided the AF speed is up to snuff. At 150-600 f5-6.3 it'll be interesting to see how it compares to the longer Sigmas and the Canon 100-400 or even some of the higher end primes with TCs attached.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/11...telephoto-zoom
If history is any guide, it will likely suck a bit at 400mm, a lot at 500mm and useless at 600mm /// of course this depends on your own personal acceptance of quality. If it has a price tag less than $5,000 dollars, it will be a good indication of poor performance on the long end.
Someone I know owns a 150-500mm Sigma and it is not that great at 400mm let alone 500mm ...
[DISCLAIMER: I am obsessed with critical sharpness. Even my 200-400mm f/4 is not that great at 400mm at long range. Up close it is stellar, but give some distance and it starts to get soft. A 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 from Canon or Nikon is the benchmark for high quality. Even a 300mm f/4 + 1.4TC beats the pants out of any zoom, from anyone.]
I would be surprised if the Tamron could match my Sigma's IQ, but I invite them to prove it. Of course, it would be silly to expect prime or even pro zoom quality from what is clearly a consumer lens.
Manny I know how much you rave about the critical sharpness thing, but regarding your obsession, do you routinely enlarge your shots for print? Or is it more for anet? I can't justify spending that much money unless people are paying me for the highest quality possible and I had to put food on the table with my glass. Otherwise, it's just a hobby. My biggest prints have been 8x10's and I rarely even do that, most shots get no bigger treatment than my 23" monitor and then only fullscreen, I almost never magnify to 100%.
William, that's the problem for me... I am in it for the sake of ultimate photo quality, regardless of destination :) It is what the hobby fulfills in me, and Aviation is only one aspect of my photography.
Yes, I regularly sell 20x30 posters of my aviation photos... and the other photos too go for large print sizes. But that's not as important as the satisfaction I get from a perfectly sharp image. I do not judge those who are satisfied with lesser quality as it is not my place. However, if someone is seeking better quality images, I am all too happy to help identify if the culprit is the glass, the photographer, technique or stable platform or a combination of the above.
I'd like to get some advices from you...Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Thanks,
Gintaras
Let me know what you had in mind. IF you want to do it off line, you can find my E-mail easily :wink:
I've heard from several people that the Tamron product has surpassed Sigma on many levels recently. On a recent lens purchase I was all set to by Sigma but was told my better choice was to go with Tamron.Quote:
Originally Posted by megatop412
On some lenses, Tamron is superb... best example is their fine 90mm Macro which is a standard benchmark.
http://www.phototurbo.com/temp/trust100.jpg
But a super-zoom or extreme telephoto lens takes painstaking MANUAL polished ASPHERICAL lens elements... if it does not, it will suck... believe me :) And those elements and manual polishing is expensive. Glass helps too (vs. plastic or composite materials)
The f6.3 max aperture on the narrow end would scare me away from this lens. I can't speak to what Nikons are capable of, but only the Canon 1-series is capable of autofocusing with that small of a max aperture. Everything else needs f5.6 or better. F6.3 has kept me from buying several Sigma and Tamron lenses that I have considered.
Ben,
The latest Nikon AF modules on the D4 and D800 for example, can AF down to f/8 guaranteed and I have tested it down to f/11 albeit very slow to lock, but it works.
I never understood that bit about the AF being unable to work. I routinely shoot the Sigma at f/9 and it focuses just fine, every time. Sure it hunts in low light, but I don't think that's what people mean about the AF issue. I upgraded from a D90 to a D300s and it works the same on both bodies. And Eric, if the Tamron is demo'ed to have better IQ, so be it...I would be happy to switch
I'd be shocked if it was extremely sharp out at the long end, but let's face it, we all know it would cost as much as some of our cars to get that kind of reach in fast sharp primes or zooms. I'm not gonna judge for sure until it gets closer to release, but the MTFs don't look half bad, of course we all know how optimistic those seem at times.
If their new 70-200 is anything to go by, this could be a winner for sure. I'd love it to be faster, but I'd say the affordability factor would go down quite a bit, and my D7100 can handle the slower lenses anyways, especially on a sunny day spotting or at an airshow.
The 70-200mm f/2.8 market is an unforgiving one. NO ONE will ever accept a mediocre 70-200mm f/2.8 from anyone at any price. So they are usually top notch from anyone. Lots of experience making that focal range too so you get a lot of good quality there. Interestingly enough, far away targets are much better resolved by your garden variety telescope than your more expensive 35mm teles and zoom-teles. Most camera lenses are designed with short range magnification and hate being focused at infinity with a target too far away. Meanwhile a telescope spends most of its day focused at infinity on really far away targets.
Case in point, the 400mm f/2.8 is primarily designed for baseball, specifically a pitcher close up from the first base dugout. The 600mm f/4 is primarily for 3rd base shots from 1st or 1st base shots from 3rd. These are standard.
William, yes, the camera will focus, but Nikon does not guarantee its operation or performance above the rated minimum aperture... that's what that is all about :wink:
Sigma's build quality and consistency has increase exponentially over the last few years. I used my Canon 100-400L for 3 years (that lens is why I went with Canon in the first place) and I finally pulled the trigger on an upgrade. Though I was nervous at first, my new Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is miles and miles better than my old Canon both in terms of image quality (color, vignetting, distortion, chromatic aberration, etc) and sharpness. Even with a 1.4x teleconverter, it's on-par with the Canon 400 f/4L that my business partner has.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Glad I'm not the only one! That's why I love my new Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II. It's so sharp it almost hurts my eyes!Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
There may be something I'm missing here. Doesn't the lens AF at its widest aperture, then change the f-stop as you press the shutter? Who cares if you're shooting at f/11 (or f/22 for that matter) if your lens' largest aperture is less than the camera's (f/8 for the new Nikons, as you said)? In other words, a lens with fixed f/2.8 aperture will focus the same whether you're shooting at f/2.8 or f/16, no? Similarly, a lens with a fixed f/2.8 will focus faster than a fixed f/6.3 if you're shooting them both at f/6.3, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
Antonis
Antonis,
That's the point. Nikon 9and Canon's) AF systems have a max aperture they can guarantee performance at. Most lenses in the lineup meet this by staying below the max f/5.6 max aperture that most of the older cameras were rated at. Yes the lens will be focused at max aperture, but if this max aperture is f/6.3, the older AF modules would struggle. Newer AF modules are focusing reliably and quickly at up to an f/8 max aperture.
if you toss in a teleconverter, this places the max aperture somewhere past the max at say f/11 or f/13 and then the AF modules will again, struggle.
BTW, the only reason Nikon had to upgrade their AF module ratings was due to the 800mm f/5.6 ... before this lens, the exotic glass in Nikon lineup was f/4 max at 600mm. Now the 800mm f/5.6 with a 1.4 TC can AF easily as it does without it.