Testing for effect

[DonSchap]

I took a few minutes, tonight, trying out the pop-up flash with my SONY A100, then decided to try out the Canon EOS 20D's pop-up flash to compare the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM against the TAmROn SP AF28-105mm f/2.8 LD

I submit these crops as a comparison between the two. You gotta love it!

TAmROn SP AF28-105mm f/2.8 LD @ 98mm - f/4 - 1/60 sec. - ISO-800
18979

18980
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM @ 98mm - f/4 - 1/60 sec. - ISO-800

You may notice the TAmROn has a slightly warmer look to it, but it does deliver a dandy image. This was a great side by side for these two amazing lenses, especially considering the TAmROn was originally designed for film, with no enhanced Di-coatings and XR corrections. Yes, both were shot handheld at about 5-feet from the subject.

The Canon has a slightly crisper looking presentation, probably due to the IS doing it's job as it should. Personally, it is nice to know both lenses can perform this well, covering the focal ranges they do.

[cdifoto]

The L is sharper (as it should be!) but that Tamron held it's own as far as I can tell. The Canon L isn't coated for digital either so that's really moot.

[cwphoto]

Thanks for posting the test Don. :)

You know it's weird; the more I look at these 100% crops sometimes the less I can tell about the true imaging power of a lens. And yet at full size sometimes you can just see stuff that gets lost at 100%.

Anybody else know where I am coming from or have I had one too many Dymples tonight?

[cdifoto]

Thanks for posting the test Don. :)

You know it's weird; the more I look at these 100% crops sometimes the less I can tell about the true imaging power of a lens. And yet at full size sometimes you can just see stuff that gets lost at 100%.

Anybody else know where I am coming from or have I had one too many Dymples tonight?

I sorta know what you mean. Too much pixel peeping and not enough appreciation. Very few of my real life shots even matter about lp/mm and all that crap because I don't have enough control of the conditions to render a "perfect" photo anyway. Kinda reminds me of the basketball shots. Over on POTN I had some members comment "You shouldn't have used ISO3200 because it's noisy and detail gets lost" and I'm saying "Well I needed ISO3200 to get a usable shutter speed."

[DonSchap]

Every image that we take has one thing in common ... the lighting. It really doesn't matter how powerful the camera is, with it's depth of ISO and aperture and shutter spped and stability ... if you don't have light ... you have BLACK.

So ... when does that leave us? I guess manipulating the light so we don't wind up with BLACK. When you think about it, we work with a very limited spectrum to create the images we do and sure, we try to stretch that spectrum as best we can ... but in the end, is it the artistry or the technical prowess that wins?

A little of both, perhaps? Or does one clearly overshadiow the other?

As the Good Lord sayeth: "Let there be Light!"

[cwphoto]

IOver on POTN I had some members comment "You shouldn't have used ISO3200 because it's noisy and detail gets lost" and I'm saying "Well I needed ISO3200 to get a usable shutter speed."

You're kidding? Sometimes I think some of these 'experts' just sit at their PCs all day and look at MTF graphs. Reminds me of my 'studio' buddies who would rubbish my wedding work for blown highlights etc - they have no idea about the real world sometimes. :mad:

PS. I'm banned from POTN so I wouldn't have known...:o

[cdifoto]

You're kidding? Sometimes I think some of these 'experts' just sit at their PCs all day and look at MTF graphs. Reminds me of my 'studio' buddies who would rubbish my wedding work for blown highlights etc - they have no idea about the real world sometimes. :mad:

PS. I'm banned from POTN so I wouldn't have known...:o

Yeah they hack you up for stupid stuff. One guy said I needed to work on my exposures...when in fact I had metered the court with my Sekonic beforehand. Another told me my white balance should have been set to 3500K. Funny thing...it WAS at 3500K. :rolleyes:

I'm not saying I'm a great photographer....but sometimes they're clueless.


Funny thing...I've been banned 2x over there. What did you get knocked for?

[cwphoto]

Funny thing...I've been banned 2x over there. What did you get knocked for?

I called a Moderator a dickhead. :cool:

[cdifoto]

I called a Moderator a dickhead. :cool:

I think that's what got me banned the first time. :eek: The second time it was cuz I said in a thread about bumping that some mods need to learn the difference between bumping and replying to a thread. I have this bad habit of responding to questions when I'm selling stuff....and they called that bumping the boards. :rolleyes:

Who'd you call a dickhead? :D

[cwphoto]

I think that's what got me banned the first time. :eek: The second time it was cuz I said in a thread about bumping that some mods need to learn the difference between bumping and replying to a thread. I have this bad habit of responding to questions when I'm selling stuff....and they called that bumping the boards. :rolleyes:

Who'd you call a dickhead? :D

Chinese bloke (Aussie joke I can't repeat here) called Guy.

[JMWallace]

[quote=cwphoto;188366]You're kidding? Sometimes I think some of these 'experts' just sit at their PCs all day and look at MTF graphs. Reminds me of my 'studio' buddies who would rubbish my wedding work for blown highlights etc - they have no idea about the real world sometimes. :mad:

I have also found that, over there, most of the time the ones that criticize the most, loudest and many times the rudest - NEVER seem to post anything. Many times, when I read posts overthere, I find myself saying out loud, "...well, why don't you post up or shut up!"

[Nickcanada]

I've found the performing arts section the best over there. They have some talent in that section.

[24Peter]

I took a few minutes, tonight, trying out the pop-up flash with my SONY A100, then decided to try out the Canon EOS 20D's pop-up flash to compare the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM against the TAmROn SP AF28-105mm f/2.8 LD


Am I the only one who's confused here? 1/ do you mean the Tamron 28-75 F2.8? Or is the 28-105 a new lens? 2/I assume both shots taken with the 20D? (The A100 has a Minolta mount no?) How would the A100 do in a similar situation with it's in-body IS?

[cdifoto]

Am I the only one who's confused here? 1/ do you mean the Tamron 28-75 F2.8? Or is the 28-105 a new lens? 2/I assume both shots taken with the 20D? (The A100 has a Minolta mount no?) How would the A100 do in a similar situation with it's in-body IS?

Tamron actually does/did make a 28-105mm f/2.8.

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/m28105mm.asp

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=TA2810528&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=142491

[24Peter]

Tamron actually does/did make a 28-105mm f/2.8.

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/m28105mm.asp

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=TA2810528&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=142491

I didn't see it on Canoga Camera's website - http://www.canogacamera.com/lenses_tamron.aspx Hence my confusion. But which camera was it on?

[RebelRat]

Didn't you guys know there is a list of people that are allowed to bump threads in POTN? :p

[DonSchap]

The TAmROn SP AF28-105mm f/2.8 LD was a lens built to be used on 35mm-film cameras, more than six years ago. While perhaps on of the finest lenses of its kind, it obviously was not designed for use with the digital bodies. I had to resubmit it for repair and an upgrade modification of its focusing circuits (covered under the 6-year manufacturer's warranty) and they did it for free. (Long warranties are good to have ;) )

I bought it to mount on my Canon EOS 20D, because I wanted an f/2.8 "walk-about" lens and found it for a great price. There are still several out there, available for around $300. They will need the modification, of course, but the results are impressive, no?

Not long afterwards, I wound up getting the 28-75 f/2.8 due to its exceptional lightweight for the 35mm-film Canon EOS-3 and then the 17-50mm f/2.8, for the same reason and the need to recapture it's wide-angle on APS-C (DCF) cameras (Canon EOS 20D).

Hope this makes a little sense. Makes little sense to me. :D

[DonSchap]

you'll just love this idea. :D

Take your depot repaired digitally-enhanced TAmROn SP AF28-105mm f/2.8 LD and toss it on a 1.4x T/C and what do you get? You get, effectively what you would get with a 70-200mm f/4 on a 35mm-film camera.

That's right. Doing the DCF math, here we go ...

28-105mm f/2.8 x 1.4x T/C x 1.6x DCF = 63-235mm f/4

The poor man's 70-200 f/4 lens!

18987

Now, there you go!


You can carry just the 28-105mm f/2.8 and the 1.4x T/C and have all the lensing you'll need for indoors shots. A lightweight combo of incredible flexibility. Obviously, the f/2.8 aperture is an important aspect to this, for adequate lighting, but you might just get away with a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, by doing the same thing. Sure, your aperture goes to f/5.6 ... but who can complain, it's a Canon "L" lens, right? And as we all know, those are sacrosanct. ;) Just push the ISO to 800 and you are good to go! To heck with the f/2.8 bokeh, eh? You can PP that in, later.

Can(on) you imagine ... carrying just the T/C around in your pocket, if you need it, with just this one lens on the front of your camera, for 90% of your shots? Portability to the next level, eh? Who needs a flippin' camera bag? Next museum or aquarium trip, this is the configuration.

Sorry, just brainstormin' ... and the weather is rough.

[cwphoto]

you'll just love this idea. :D

Canon you imagine ... carrying just the T/C around in your pocket, if you need it, with just this one lens on the front of your camera, for 90% of your shots? Portability to the next level, eh? Who needs a flippin' camera bag?

Sorry, just brainstormin' ... and the weather is rough.

I don't love that idea - couldn't think of anything worse. :eek:

[DonSchap]

Admittedly Christian, it is a compromise ... but, perhaps, it's worth a shot. God knows, the lens is hot glass. The T/C is just a bit more ... but how many long shots would plan on taking this way. One, two ... maybe as many as three?

Obviously, if it were an all outdoor shoot, the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM would be the choice of champions and you would plan on having it alongside, but for the sheer "portability-factor" alone, I do believe it might be worth exploring. :cool:

[cdifoto]

Have you tried it yet or just mounted it? I imagine AF would be pretty dicey at best. Tamrons don't have USM in the first place so a TC would probably make it pretty bad. Not to mention IQ loss.

[DonSchap]

I shot and cropped with and without the T/C ... taking into account the image size. Here is what I wound up with:

18991

18992

There is a slight IQ hit, because of the added glass between the lens and sensor, but all things considered ... the pixel peep reveals a rather decent looking image, regardless.

Remember, the EXIF data does NOT take into account the T/C. I set to f/4 w/o the T/C to provide equal light through the lens. Judging from what I am seeing, the T/C may not be cutting down a full f-stop, but more like 2/3.

With an f/2.8 lens hanging off the T/C, AF is a breeze. It has not been a problem since the lens' circuit replacement to make it digital focus capable. The handheld shots are pretty telling ... and at wide open aperture, they are reasonably sharp.