Page 78 of 78 FirstFirst ... 286869707172737475767778
Results 3,851 to 3,890 of 3890

Thread: dSLR thread

  1. #3851
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,402
    From Nikon Rumors, "Nikon officially announced the development of the previously rumored AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR lens."

    Smart announcing the 500mm before a 600mm f/5.6 PF/DO lens. They can price the 500mm rather decently, then price gouge the 600mm f/5.6 a year later. Although the 500mm will be a full-frame (FX) lens it will be targeted to the crop (DX) D500 crowd while the pricey 600mm will be marketed to the full-frame folks.

    Quote Originally Posted by LunarMist View Post
    I see there is a new 70-200/4 IS EF lens.
    Canon updated the 70-200/2.8 IS as well. But it appears all the 2.8 lens got was a new paint job. At least the price didn't get crazy high like the Nikkor 70-200/2.8E.
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q, Unicomp/104, M500, M401dn, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  2. #3852
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    Quote Originally Posted by snowhiker View Post
    From Nikon Rumors, "Nikon officially announced the development of the previously rumored AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR lens."

    Smart announcing the 500mm before a 600mm f/5.6 PF/DO lens. They can price the 500mm rather decently, then price gouge the 600mm f/5.6 a year later. Although the 500mm will be a full-frame (FX) lens it will be targeted to the crop (DX) D500 crowd while the pricey 600mm will be marketed to the full-frame folks.



    Canon updated the 70-200/2.8 IS as well. But it appears all the 2.8 lens got was a new paint job. At least the price didn't get crazy high like the Nikkor 70-200/2.8E.
    The Canon 600/4 DO has been rumored and in development forever. Obviously an f/5.6 should be cheaper to build. Technologically a 500/5.6 should be easier than a 600/5.6, but it would be more economical to produce both together using similar designs and some shared components. A 600/5.6 would be far more useful since there is already the 200-500/5.6.
    --Lunar

  3. #3853
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,402
    Quote Originally Posted by LunarMist View Post
    The Canon 600/4 DO has been rumored and in development forever. Obviously an f/5.6 should be cheaper to build. Technologically a 500/5.6 should be easier than a 600/5.6, but it would be more economical to produce both together using similar designs and some shared components. A 600/5.6 would be far more useful since there is already the 200-500/5.6.
    The Canon 600/4 DO will be a 10-12k lens I'm sure. Way out of the price league of a f/5.6. Re-thinking my post, I agree a 600/5.6 PF would be a lot better received than the 500/5.6 PF. And going by the comments on the Nikon Rumors site this seems to be the case. The demand for the 500 may be so light because people have the 200-500 already Nikon my decide to delay the 600. If the 500/5.6 PF isn't stellar IQ wise or crazy expensive $4000+ it will be a marketing DOA.

    Interesting to see what Nikon's marketing will be for: 400, 500 and 600mm f/5.6 PF lenses.
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q, Unicomp/104, M500, M401dn, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  4. #3854
    Not really a Hairy Aussie
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,974
    I spent some time this weekend with a Blackmagic Design URSA Mini Pro + Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS USM II on my shoulder this past weekend. It was a tad heavy and uncomfortable. The image quality at 1080p was quite impressive.

  5. #3855
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,402
    New SD card spec in the works.

    Quote from a PetaPixel article, "The new Ultra Capacity (UC) designation will mean capacities of up to 128 terabytes and the “Express” designation will mean transfer speeds of up to 985 megabytes per second." More info.
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q, Unicomp/104, M500, M401dn, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  6. #3856
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,402
    Well I can dump my Nikon gear and switch over to Sony now. I'm kidding Lunar.

    Sony unveils their new 400mm f/2.8.
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q, Unicomp/104, M500, M401dn, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  7. #3857
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    No 500/4, which is the only larger lens I would have any use for. 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 are mainly for sports.
    --Lunar

  8. #3858
    Not really a Hairy Aussie
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,974
    Quote Originally Posted by snowhiker View Post
    Well I can dump my Nikon gear and switch over to Sony now. I'm kidding Lunar.

    Sony unveils their new 400mm f/2.8.
    Do you have $12k I can "borrow"?

  9. #3859
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
    Do you have $12k I can "borrow"?
    That is not an unusual price for such a lens. Newer lenses tend to have higher IQ and cost more, partly because the production volumes are low.
    --Lunar

  10. #3860
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    The new 70-200/4 IS II is only ~1/10th of that.
    --Lunar

  11. #3861
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    Quote Originally Posted by LunarMist View Post
    The new 70-200/4 IS II is only ~1/10th of that.
    The filter size is 72 mm.
    --Lunar

  12. #3862
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,402
    The rumored price of the new Nikkor 500mm f/5.6 PF (DO) lens is $4300. With that price the lens better have stellar IQ all the way to the corner of the frame.

    The lens will be about 24cm in length which is approximately 15cm shorter than the current 500mm f/4E lens.
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q, Unicomp/104, M500, M401dn, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  13. #3863
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    Quote Originally Posted by snowhiker View Post
    The rumored price of the new Nikkor 500mm f/5.6 PF (DO) lens is $4300. With that price the lens better have stellar IQ all the way to the corner of the frame.

    The lens will be about 24cm in length which is approximately 15cm shorter than the current 500mm f/4E lens.
    The price looks good for IQ. I'm not sure if that lens will be useful enough. The problem with f/5.6 is that IQ and/or AF may be an issue with a 1.4x. I'm not seeing anything about the weight and it does have a lot of elements.
    I'd rather have a better quality 200-500/5.6 or a 500/4 PF. I'm wondering if there is just not enough weight to be saved by making shorter big teles with DO/PF groups now that carbon fiber, magnesium, and other lightweight materials are used for construction.
    --Lunar

  14. #3864
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,402
    ^^^ I wish it was the 600mm @ $4300.

    DO/PF may not reduce the weight a whole lot, but length of lens is shortened quite a bit.
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q, Unicomp/104, M500, M401dn, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  15. #3865
    Storage? I am Storage! Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ballarat, Oz
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by snowhiker View Post
    The rumored price of the new Nikkor 500mm f/5.6 PF (DO) lens is $4300. With that price the lens better have stellar IQ all the way to the corner of the frame.

    The lens will be about 24cm in length which is approximately 15cm shorter than the current 500mm f/4E lens.
    This is indeed a lot of money for a fairly small lens. You would expect it to be physically much smaller than a 500/4. After all, the f/4 lens needs to collect twice as much light so (to a first approximation) the f/5.6 should be half the size. Nikon can be pretty damn silly when it comes to pricing; they go way over the top sometimes. Then, just when you have written them off as hopelessly expensive, they release something priced very reasonably indeed. (I'm thinking of their 200-500/5.6 zoom here.) How do they figure these things?

    80-400: very dear for what it is.
    200-500: remarkably reasonable
    500/5.6: extremely expensive
    500/4: too expensive, though not completely outrageous

    If there is a pattern there, I'm not seeing it.

    If they are going to price the 500/5.6 that way, who do they expect to buy it? Sure, it will undoubtedly outperform the 600ish f/6.3 zooms from Sigma and Tamron, and doubtless their own 200-500/5.6. But how many people are going to stump up the substantial extra cash for a Nikon 80-400? Not many. And well over double for the 500/5.6? Practically no-one, you'd imagine. At that sort of price, why wouldn't a buyer look at a far more flexible and not all that much dearer 300/2.8? Slap a 1.4 or 1.7 converter on that and you'd be well in front of the 600mm zooms for quality and effective reach (albeit for a lot more money), still have a faster lens, and be pretty close to the 500/5.6 - which I am assuming will have downright superb optics because anything less and it wouldn't have any reason to exist.

    Nikon aren't stupid. Just weird.
    It's only crap after it fails. Until then it is the performance deal of the moment. - Dave

  16. #3866
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    It would be so much easier if Nikon updated the 80-400. That and a 500/5.6 would be not bad with a D850.
    The Canon 100-400 is the main reason I'm using Canon for wildlife at this point.
    --Lunar

  17. #3867
    Storage? I am Storage! Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ballarat, Oz
    Posts
    4,426
    People say I love my 100-400 II.

    That is untrue.

    I just say that I love it to get it into bed with me.
    It's only crap after it fails. Until then it is the performance deal of the moment. - Dave

  18. #3868
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,402
    Hopefully the rumored price for the Nikkor 500/5.6 PF is just that; a rumor. Realistically the mid $3k mark should be the final price. Say... $3496. Then the 600/5.6 can be $4396. Again the IQ has to be there for those prices. Better than the 200-500/5.6 level but a bit behind the 500/4 & 600/4 super-primes.
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q, Unicomp/104, M500, M401dn, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  19. #3869
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    Quote Originally Posted by snowhiker View Post
    Hopefully the rumored price for the Nikkor 500/5.6 PF is just that; a rumor. Realistically the mid $3k mark should be the final price. Say... $3496. Then the 600/5.6 can be $4396. Again the IQ has to be there for those prices. Better than the 200-500/5.6 level but a bit behind the 500/4 & 600/4 super-primes.
    I'm not seeing much hope for that lens by October. I might consider it again for January 2020, but that is a ways off.
    --Lunar

  20. #3870
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,402
    Pics of the 500/5.6 PF at the Nikon World Cup party. It looks tiny for a 500mm lens. I really hope the price is under the $4k mark, instead of the rumored $4300 price.
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q, Unicomp/104, M500, M401dn, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  21. #3871
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    Quote Originally Posted by snowhiker View Post
    Pics of the 500/5.6 PF at the Nikon World Cup party. It looks tiny for a 500mm lens. I really hope the price is under the $4k mark instead, of the rumored $4300 price.
    It looks small enough that there should be an f/4 or a 600.
    --Lunar

  22. #3872
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,402
    Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens.

    Pre-orders are up. $3600. Looks like my guess was off by $100.
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q, Unicomp/104, M500, M401dn, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  23. #3873
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,402
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q, Unicomp/104, M500, M401dn, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  24. #3874
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    The 600/4 IS III is shipping next week. I'd probably buy if it were out sooner and a DO lens. That 18' length is a bit much for my bags.
    --Lunar

  25. #3875
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,402
    Quote Originally Posted by LunarMist View Post
    The 600/4 IS III is shipping next week. I'd probably buy if it were out sooner and a DO lens. That 18' length is a bit much for my bags.
    Canon 300/2.8 and 500/4 to receive an update middle of 2019. Probably the same types of updates as the new versions of the 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses. No word on 200/2 or 800/5.6 updates. Perhaps just before Tokyo 2020.

    Canon displayed a mock-up/prototype 600/4 DO a few years ago. I wonder what happened. I think Canon is missing the boat, as far as sales go; for the, "I want a big telephoto lens but will NEVER, EVER, NOT in 2352416137 years be able to afford a $9K+ lens" semi-pro/well-off-amateur folks.

    The Nikkor 500/5.6 PF looks pretty good both in IQ and size/weight. Two 500mm Nikkor lenses available now that aren't "Super Telephoto" in cost. 200-500/5.6 @ $1400 and 500/5.6PF @ $3600. Over 400mm in the Canon world is $9k for the 500/4. Probably sharper and obviously a stop faster, but still $9k. I think there is room in the Canon lineup between the 100-400/4.5-5.6 and the 500/4 lenses.
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q, Unicomp/104, M500, M401dn, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  26. #3876
    Fixture ddrueding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Monterey, CA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    19,256
    I always thought the 100-400 was the big lens for people who had limited funds (that's why I bought it). Any of the big fast primes are for corps or crazies.
    Work1: i7-8086@5.3Ghz, 32GB, 512GB 970 Pro, 2080ti
    Home1: i7-8700K@5.1Ghz, 64GB, 512GB 960 Pro, 1080ti
    Home2: i9-7900X@4.5Ghz, 64GB, 512GB 960 Pro, 1080ti

  27. #3877
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    I still have the original 500/4 IS lens, but will rent a 500/4 IS II when needed. I have to make some decisions about June soon enough and don't expect a 500/4 III by then.
    The problem with the 600/4 III is that it is still quite long and I'd need different bags. I can fit a 500/4 in a 22L GG bag, but a bag that fits a 600/4 will be noticeably larger on the international flights.
    --Lunar

  28. #3878
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    Quote Originally Posted by snowhiker View Post
    Canon 300/2.8 and 500/4 to receive an update middle of 2019. Probably the same types of updates as the new versions of the 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses. No word on 200/2 or 800/5.6 updates. Perhaps just before Tokyo 2020.

    Canon displayed a mock-up/prototype 600/4 DO a few years ago. I wonder what happened. I think Canon is missing the boat, as far as sales go; for the, "I want a big telephoto lens but will NEVER, EVER, NOT in 2352416137 years be able to afford a $9K+ lens" semi-pro/well-off-amateur folks.

    The Nikkor 500/5.6 PF looks pretty good both in IQ and size/weight. Two 500mm Nikkor lenses available now that aren't "Super Telephoto" in cost. 200-500/5.6 @ $1400 and 500/5.6PF @ $3600. Over 400mm in the Canon world is $9k for the 500/4. Probably sharper and obviously a stop faster, but still $9k. I think there is room in the Canon lineup between the 100-400/4.5-5.6 and the 500/4 lenses.
    I would be very interested in a 600/5.6 PF Nikkor.
    --Lunar

  29. #3879
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,402
    Quote Originally Posted by LunarMist View Post
    I would be very interested in a 600/5.6 PF Nikkor.
    Probably, maybe in 2019. $4500-4700. 35-40% of the 600/4E cost. Everybody who is/was planning on buying a 600/4 probably has already bought the big boy. 600mm is a threshold people want to obtain but will never spend $12,300. I think people are holding off buying the 500/5.6 PF in the hopes of the 600/5.6 PF becoming available semi-soon.

    What will happen first; 600/4 DO or 600/5.6 PF?
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q, Unicomp/104, M500, M401dn, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  30. #3880
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    Quote Originally Posted by snowhiker View Post
    Probably, maybe in 2019. $4500-4700. 35-40% of the 600/4E cost. Everybody who is/was planning on buying a 600/4 probably has already bought the big boy. 600mm is a threshold people want to obtain but will never spend $12,300. I think people are holding off buying the 500/5.6 PF in the hopes of the 600/5.6 PF becoming available semi-soon.

    What will happen first; 600/4 DO or 600/5.6 PF?
    I suspect neither will be available by June 1, 2019.
    --Lunar

  31. #3881
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,402
    For the hardcore and/or wealthy amateur: Zeiss Otus 100mm f/1.4.
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q, Unicomp/104, M500, M401dn, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

  32. #3882
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    Quote Originally Posted by snowhiker View Post
    For the hardcore and/or wealthy amateur: Zeiss Otus 100mm f/1.4.
    There is still no AF, so it's made for static subjects.
    --Lunar

  33. #3883
    Storage? I am Storage! Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ballarat, Oz
    Posts
    4,426
    Meanwhile, back in the mundane world, the only thing I've bought recently is a Tamron 85/1.8 IS. At around $800 AU it's a mid-price lens, vastly cheaper than the Canon 85/1.4 IS and 85/1.2 and the Sigma 85/1.4 Art, quite a lot more than the ancient Canon and Nikon 85/1.8s.

    More importantly, it is vastly smaller and lighter than the 1.4s and 1.2, though still a significantly bigger lump in your bag than the cheap 1.8s. It's built to high standard: all metal, none of that flimsy feel Tamrons used to have. In reality, I don't use an 85mm prime all that much: for me it's a nice little luxury. I can't justify spending $2000-odd on the only other one I seriously considered (Canon 1.4 IS) given that it won't get a ton of use, and even if you gave me one, I wouldn't cart it around with me 'coz it's just too big and heavy. The Tamron, though, is a sensible size and I don't mind slipping it into my shoulder bag if IO go for a walk with, say,j the 24-105 and/or the 16-35. So apart from being less than half the price, I'll actually use it much more often than a Sigma Art or an L Series Canon.

    F/1.8 is fine for my purposes; I'd seldom if ever use f/1.4 (I reckon I've used f/1.4 on my Canon 35mm twice, ever) and the review sites all reckon the Tamron is optically very good. I'm not into test shots and pixel peeping; I just take pictures. Results are everything I expected, which is to say just fine.

    One gotcha. It's really Canon's problem, but worth mentioning. If you have PIC (software vignette correction) switched on with a 5D IV, you get horrible dark rings on the picture, but only at wide apertures. Really obvious.



    (Yes, the background is supposed to be out of focus. It's plenty sharp at the focus point)

    It does this at all apertures below f/2.8, does it to a lesser extent at f/2.8, and is fine from f/3.3 on. It ONLY does it with the 5D IV (and possibly some other newish full frame models). It is fine with a 5D II. The workaround is simple: turn off off PIC. Or work from the raw file. Or use a different camera. Easy-peasy. No hu-hu.

    Anyway, I'm happy with the lens, and it's perhaps worth mentioning that this is the first time I've ever bought a Tamron. I've been happy with my two or three Tokinas, but always regarded Tamron and Sigma as cheap and flimsy (Tamron) or cheap and buggy (Sigma) things, but those days seem to be passing.

    The one thing I'm still missing is something around the 50mm mark. Nearly all the 50mm lenses are ancient, crappy, flawed, very heavy and expensive, or some combination of these things. I'd use a 50 even less than the 85, so expensive products need not apply. Tokina have an interesting 50/1.4 on the way (but as always with Tokina, a lot heavier than it looks - though I actually don't mind weight so much as bulk), otherwise, there is Tamron's sister to the 85, a 45/1.8 with IS at around $730. I'm not sure that I really need a 45 when I already have Canon 35/1.4 and 40/2.8, neither of which I use much, so I'm still thinking about it. Prefer a 50 really. The senjsible thing to do, of course, is nothing.
    It's only crap after it fails. Until then it is the performance deal of the moment. - Dave

  34. #3884
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Tannin View Post
    Meanwhile, back in the mundane world, the only thing I've bought recently is a Tamron 85/1.8 IS. At around $800 AU it's a mid-price lens, vastly cheaper than the Canon 85/1.4 IS and 85/1.2 and the Sigma 85/1.4 Art, quite a lot more than the ancient Canon and Nikon 85/1.8s.

    More importantly, it is vastly smaller and lighter than the 1.4s and 1.2, though still a significantly bigger lump in your bag than the cheap 1.8s. It's built to high standard: all metal, none of that flimsy feel Tamrons used to have. In reality, I don't use an 85mm prime all that much: for me it's a nice little luxury. I can't justify spending $2000-odd on the only other one I seriously considered (Canon 1.4 IS) given that it won't get a ton of use, and even if you gave me one, I wouldn't cart it around with me 'coz it's just too big and heavy. The Tamron, though, is a sensible size and I don't mind slipping it into my shoulder bag if IO go for a walk with, say,j the 24-105 and/or the 16-35. So apart from being less than half the price, I'll actually use it much more often than a Sigma Art or an L Series Canon.

    F/1.8 is fine for my purposes; I'd seldom if ever use f/1.4 (I reckon I've used f/1.4 on my Canon 35mm twice, ever) and the review sites all reckon the Tamron is optically very good. I'm not into test shots and pixel peeping; I just take pictures. Results are everything I expected, which is to say just fine.

    One gotcha. It's really Canon's problem, but worth mentioning. If you have PIC (software vignette correction) switched on with a 5D IV, you get horrible dark rings on the picture, but only at wide apertures. Really obvious.



    (Yes, the background is supposed to be out of focus. It's plenty sharp at the focus point)

    It does this at all apertures below f/2.8, does it to a lesser extent at f/2.8, and is fine from f/3.3 on. It ONLY does it with the 5D IV (and possibly some other newish full frame models). It is fine with a 5D II. The workaround is simple: turn off off PIC. Or work from the raw file. Or use a different camera. Easy-peasy. No hu-hu.

    Anyway, I'm happy with the lens, and it's perhaps worth mentioning that this is the first time I've ever bought a Tamron. I've been happy with my two or three Tokinas, but always regarded Tamron and Sigma as cheap and flimsy (Tamron) or cheap and buggy (Sigma) things, but those days seem to be passing.

    The one thing I'm still missing is something around the 50mm mark. Nearly all the 50mm lenses are ancient, crappy, flawed, very heavy and expensive, or some combination of these things. I'd use a 50 even less than the 85, so expensive products need not apply. Tokina have an interesting 50/1.4 on the way (but as always with Tokina, a lot heavier than it looks - though I actually don't mind weight so much as bulk), otherwise, there is Tamron's sister to the 85, a 45/1.8 with IS at around $730. I'm not sure that I really need a 45 when I already have Canon 35/1.4 and 40/2.8, neither of which I use much, so I'm still thinking about it. Prefer a 50 really. The senjsible thing to do, of course, is nothing.
    The bogus 3rd party corrections have been an issue for many years. I always suggest turning off all of the corrections anyway one is better off seeing how the lens performs natively and of course shooting RAW since jpegs suck anyway.
    I actually have the Canon 85/1.8, which is a fine lens at middle apertures. I use it as a gap filler between the 24-70 and 100-400 when I'm not bringing a 70-200.
    I'd assume you would have a macro lens in that range, such as the 100/2.8 IS, but that lens is fine for certain purposes.

    Testing and calibration of lenses is important due to the inherent variability in construction.
    --Lunar

  35. #3885
    Storage? I am Storage! Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ballarat, Oz
    Posts
    4,426
    It's not "of course" shooting raw. It is actually quite amazing how many photographers say this sort of thing without thinking about it. For some tasks, JPGs are clearly preferred. An example is sport on a deadline. And for nearly all tasks they have both advantages and disadvantages. In particular, they are vastly more efficient and easier to sort and review.

    Most bigoted supporters of the raw religion immediately tee off at this point, yammering on and on about white balance and dynamic range, as if these were the two biggest problems photographers ever meet. In fact, of course, these only become issues when you get the WB wrong in-camera, when you get your exposure wrong, or when the scene presents genuine dynamic range challenges. In 95% of shots, they are non-issues.

    And practically none of the raw congregation ever stops to remember that there is absolutely nothing stopping a photographer from having almost all the advantages of JPG and all the advantages of raw simply by shooting both. In fact there are further advantages to the combination; in particular, extra safety. You send raw files to the compact flash card and JPGs to the SD card. (Or the other way around. But in general CF cards are bigger and faster and cheaper than SDs.) Then even after total failure of a card - yes, this can happen - you still always have your day's pictures in one form or the other.

    The final result of photography is nearly always a JPG (actual printed output is slowly becoming less and less common). All this talk of "limited colours" you hear from raw preachers is, so far as the final result is concerned, utter tosh. There is more truth in a Trump tweet, or even a Symantec press release. The colour depth thing is a factor only if you need to adjust the colours during post, and if you got then right in-camera, you don't need to do this.

    And, of course, if you shoot both, while you have the speed and convenience and efficiency of JPGs to ease your workflow, anytime you strike an image where you need the flexibility of raw, it is there for you.

    By the way, members of the raw church, for some reason unknown to modern science, consistently make the mistake of writing raw as "RAW". Nobody knows why. It's not an acronym, it doesn't stand for anything, it's just a perfectly normal English work, like "boot" or "cabbage". For reasons equally unknown, church members don't generally go around writing things like "I had pumpkin and CABBAGE for tea" or "I think I might buy some new BOOTS today". Possibly the writing "raw" in capitals thing is something unconscious taught to them very young, the same way Catholics are taught to say the letter "H" as "haitch".
    It's only crap after it fails. Until then it is the performance deal of the moment. - Dave

  36. #3886
    Storage? I am Storage! Tea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    27a No Fixed Address, Oz.
    Age
    9
    Posts
    3,714
    My word, Tannin is grumpy today, isn't he!

    Besides, he should realise that most of his readers ... yes, both of them ... are Americans who probably won't get the "haitch" thing. So far as I know, that's an Australia-only phenomenon (not saying "haitch, poorly-spoken English people say "haitch" too, I mean the Catholic connection). It probably has something to do with the strong history of the Irish Catholic community in Oz, particularly the Catholic school system, which was (and to some extent still is) very tribal, taking only Catholic kids, teaching them to say "haitch", and then recycling them into nuns and teaching brothers in the same schools.

    This being a family-friendly website, we won't say what other interesting cultural practice was an institution in those institutions, but we might provide a hint by mentioning that the Pope's right-hand man (effectively the Minster for Finance) has been dragged back to Australia to stand trial for it.
    Mein Elefant hat einen Kater

  37. #3887
    I can't believe I'm a Fixture LunarMist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    14,529
    Although cameras have improved internal image processing recently, it is nowhere close to what can be done with skilled PP. Obviously for many purposes, especially commercial work, image quality is not paramount and jpegs are good enough.
    In 2016 I reprocessed some RAW images from 2003 (1Ds) and was able to achieve far better results than possible back then.
    RAW+JPG can be detrimental for action as the buffer throughput is usually slowed. It may have more or less impact depending on the camera and cards.
    "RAW" is not technically correct, but a generic term probably derived from using a three letter extension. The early Canon DLSRs such as the 1Ds produced a modified TIF file format. There was a tiny TIF file for the rear display and then all the raw data was appended to that (~11MB).
    --Lunar

  38. #3888
    Not really a Hairy Aussie
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    9,974
    But no one knows what you do (aside from work for the CIA). Your posts assume we have the same requirements you do. We have no idea what your requirements are or if they're actually legitimate for your use because you're obsessed with being vague and cryptic. We don't know if you're a hobbyist with lots of disposable income to squander on camera gear or a pro with images published on front pages.

    In general your posts lean toward excess where you stress over things that don't actually matter for any sane use case, like your multimeter accuracy requirements, and your expectation of your PC's clock accuracy, so I'd expect that's probably the case here too. As such, don't plan on being taken too seriously.

  39. #3889
    Storage? I am Storage! Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ballarat, Oz
    Posts
    4,426
    Image processing differences are, in most instances, immaterial. Only where the photographer wants to perform major tonal adjustments (i,e., has left the field of photography in the true sense and is making a manipulated image instead) is it of any consequence. (Or, of course, in the case where he has buggered the thing up in-camera and is trying to correct the fumble.)

    In fact, the speed difference between raw + JPG and raw-only is trivially small. Yes, there are significant speed differences depending on what format you shoot, but they approximate to

    (a) JPG only: fast. Practically impossible to fill the buffer
    (b) Everything else (including raw-only and raw + JPG): slow. Possible to fill the buffer - but with good quality modern cameras and reasonable-spec flash cards (not your old one that you've had for ten years), it is quite difficult.

    If you are having difficulty with buffer-full situations, and it really and truly isn't just a case of poor judgment when the action is hot, then the one and only thing which can make a significant difference is going JPG only, 'cause it's the massive great raw files which kill your buffer. Note in particular that the key bottleneck is flash card write speed. The camera can go faster, but the card can't. But by using dual cards and sending the raw files to the faster of the two cards (usually the CF card) the camera is able to write the small JPG files to the slower card (normally the SD card) while it is waiting for the fast card to finish writing the raw file and the speed difference between raw-only and raw + JPG, never large in the first place, becomes smaller still and quite possibly zero.

    Togs in situations where speed really, really matters (notably sport) have traditionally used JPG-only for these reasons. They know what exposure and white balance they need; they just need to get the magic-moment shot.
    It's only crap after it fails. Until then it is the performance deal of the moment. - Dave

  40. #3890
    Wannabe Storage Freak
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,402
    Quote Originally Posted by snowhiker View Post
    What will happen first; 600/4 DO or 600/5.6 PF?
    Looks like the 600/4 DO might ship with the new Canon RF mount, instead of EF. In 2020. Maybe.
    - 3770k, 212 EVO, Z77X-UD4H, 32GB, 660w, Titan, 840 Pro/256GB, 2TB & 1TB, Define R4, P4317Q, Unicomp/104, M500, M401dn, Win7 Pro x64.

    - Nikon D610 w/grip, 50mm/1.4G, 16-35mm/4G, 105mm/2.8G micro, 200-500mm/5.6E.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •