The light trap!
Originally Posted by seanhoxx
I thought you knew that I have the TAMRON SP AF 180mm f/3.5 Di LD 1:1 MACRO. It is a sizeable lens, compared to the convenience of the SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 MACRO lens.
Slow to focus, in AF mode ... but it does allow you to back up considerably, versus how close you have to get with the smaller 90mm. Right now, that 180mm lens is a bargain, compared to the low price I paid for it, a year or so, ago.
I shot a couple of the football shots, from the other night, using it. I was manually focusing, to make good use of it ... because -> it is a nightmare in AF, trying to get sports images with it. Lots of light, but it tends to focus back and forth ... with no LIMIT switch, like the 90mm has.
This is a straight out of the memory shot (resized, of course).
EXIF: f/4 - 1/200 sec - ISO-1600 - M - Spot Metering (Subject distance ~45 yards)
Here's the original 180mm thread ... I wrote a year ago.
Here's the original 90mm thread ... I also wrote a year ago.
Then just for the heck of it ... here's the original ATX-840 thread, again, 365 days earlier.
Then, of course, the talk of the town has always been this puppy ... for $25,000
Even if this woman has to get a close up of the mount! :D LOL
I mean, look at the structural consideration you need to have to support such a weapon of light absorption!
You know, Sean ... if this keeps up, rather than buying expensive glass ... it may just wind up being cheaper to buy the school a whole new lighting system. :eek:
LOL always make me laugh Don, yea I was pretty sure you had the 180 but didn't recall much talk about it or remember any images. I thought maybe you were not happy with it or it just didn't perform as well as some of your other glass. Yea I don't imagine it would be to handy once the sun goes down, or even gets low, but it "seems" that it would be a handy lens with the right light. I have also thought that as I am planning on the 200-500mm next year would the 180 wind up being "to much glass for some situations, and not enough reach for others" and then be left sitting on "the shelf"
Oh and Don speaking of the Tokina 840 ATX, damn good advice! I really like that lens, when the sun is shinning anyway, it even did pretty good in the late afternoon light, the 400mm is a HUGE plus if and when you need it and got the light. Now that super bigma Sigma, I live 7 miles from the highschool, with enough height i just might be able to cover the games from home LOL!!
Well, that one lens would easily pay for EVERYTHING I have at my disposal, that's for sure. Not too many members of this forum could sport that monster, that's for sure. I find it very troubling that even in mass production, SIGMA could not get the price down to $12,000. $25,000 is just too much dough for a single lens on a 35mm sensor. You could go with CW's solution of owning darn near every long prime that Canon makes and still be ahead. No matter what lens you chose, it would still be only a third of the weight of this mega-lens.
I would like to see some side-by-sides of that zoom versus the long primes.
Speaking of length, how long is this lens from head to toe (with the cap on) and how long is it on the camera from the back to the tip of the lens (without a hood). I'm trying to see how it would fit in a bag I want to order.
Tamron lists the length as 7.5" but that seems a bit short. I thought popphoto mentioned 11" so I'm not sure what to make of it.
@ dr4gon: The lens measures 8 3/4-inches long and the hood (widest part of lens) w/ tripod mount and quick-release RC2) is 5-inches.
It's too tight in the center of my Velocity 8 bag (the larger Tamrac Velocity 9 accomodates it or the 200-500mm quite nicely), so I'm keeping the 70-200 as a piggy-back in the LowePro LC4 case.
Which a far cry from trying to do anything with the default "lens packing" it came in ... :mad:
. . . . . . . . . . TAMRON's "Lens Packing" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LowePro LC4
How big is yours? LOL
I know how you guys like comparisons ... here are three lenses you might relate to.
M.F.D. means "minimum focus distance" or how close you can get to your focused subject from the front of the lens ... before you lose focus.
Left: ) TAMRON AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 LD MACRO (M.F.D. = 5-feet normally, 3-feet in MACRO mode)
Center: ) Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (Model 1) (M.F.D. = 8-feet)
Right: ) TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD MACRO (IF) (M.F.D. = 37.1 inches)
Just so there is no mistaking it ... the first image is witht lense at minmum focal length and maximum focal distance
this second image extends the lenses to maximum focal length, minimum focal distance.
Note: the 70-200mm does not change shape. That's the beauty of this lens, no gears to get compressed or damaged during transport. It is what it is. SIZE ... doesn't matter ;) It is what's inside that counts.
Compensate for that! :eek:
damn, that's awesome it doesn't move or rotate with zoom/focusing! didn't know about the zoom. I know the 200-500mm gets massively larger. :D
I can't wait to get my hands on this lens!
I was going to post a pic of the KM 50mm 1.7 and make a commnet about feeling inadequte LOL dr4gon also note the 70-200 has a kind of strange push pull on the focus ring for AF/MF and the change is VERY slight when you do it. If I hadn't read about before hand I don't know how long it would have taken for me to figure it out. and no size don't matter, but girth is what it's worth!
And speaking of tamron lens packing "tube" I have been using mine as a "protective sleeve" over the lens when it's on the camera and I am taking a break before and between soccer games, and when I go and sit down with my wife and visit at the games.