Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Oh yeah, forgot to ask, how did the AF keep up with tracking? Did you use AF-A or AF-C? I heard it does OK, and will allow you to keep a fair number of shots.
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    Dr4gon the shot you asked about is from a multiple shot set, the one up the post a bit was the first one the one you asked about I think was the third, maybe have a fourth, i will look and post them in order. As it got darker and on wider / longer shots where I had more 'targets' in the frame tracking was a bit slow, AF went back and forth a bit before setting. I have not used a truely superior quality zoom so I can't say how 'bad' it was, I used AF-C, I hope the next field is better lit and will see how it does there with tracking.
    Sony A700_____________Minolta AF 50mm. F/1.7
    Minolta AF 70-210mm F/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII LD Asp. [IF]
    Tamron SP AF 70-200mm. F/2.8 DI LD [IF] Macro
    Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Tokina AF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5
    Tokina AF AT-X 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6
    http://flickr.com/

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    Don, as i have said before I really like and enjoy the 70-300 i think it is a great at hand, knock about zoom, I will use it oftenI think the IQ in good light is VERY good, I like the color, and it handles well. the Tokina 80-400 is one big old honking hardy piece of glass, i don't think those are the technical terms LOL. The extra 100mm is perfect for me and where I shoot sports from, if i am back farther or in the stands it will be my go to lens, provided I got the light!! the 70-200 so far seems to be perfect for me when the light goes down, I think it will 'work' even better for me at indoor events then it does at outdoor sports. but so far I am PLEASED. and for the price although it ain't cheap I have my 2.8 and will be able to buy a flash unit, not this week, or this month LOL. If I was doing this to try and make money at it yea I would upgrade and double the price and up the weight. Bit for what I am doing with it this lens is working out great, if only tamron could have bumped it to a 70-250mm, LOL always wanting more aren't we!
    Sony A700_____________Minolta AF 50mm. F/1.7
    Minolta AF 70-210mm F/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII LD Asp. [IF]
    Tamron SP AF 70-200mm. F/2.8 DI LD [IF] Macro
    Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Tokina AF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5
    Tokina AF AT-X 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6
    http://flickr.com/

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,559
    Quote Originally Posted by seanhoxx View Post
    Don ... what I am doing with it this lens is working out great, if only tamron could have bumped it to a 70-250mm ...
    250mm at f/2.8? That would be something. Roughly a rather large primary element (or entrance pupil), to be sure. I calculate it to be around 90mm in diameter. Try getting a filter for that!

    That is:
    ___F__
    f/stop

    where F = focal length in mm
    & f/stop (in this case) = f/2.8

    250mm/2.8 = ~90mm ... that's sizeable glass. The 300mm f/2.8 weighs almost 6 pounds. This would probably be around 4 or 4.5 lbs.

    Currently, the TAMRON 70-200mm f/2.8 weighs only 40.6 ounces. That's 12 ounces less than the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM or the SONY 70-200mm G SSM. Hey, that's an extra can of beer for the cooler! Sooo, for that extra 50mm of reach ... you tack on 2 more pounds!!!

    Let's say we wanted more light ... and took it to f/1.8 ... oh yeah ... night vision!

    Name:  rigel_1100.jpg
Views: 123
Size:  19.6 KB

    The math:

    250mm/1.8 = ~140mm diameter primary element!!! Get out the hernia belt!

    Just to give you an idea of what we are talking about, here ... the Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM weighes about 12+ lbs ... the front element on it is around 145mm.

    Quote Originally Posted by seanhoxx View Post
    LOL always wanting more, aren't we?
    Sean ... that kind of "more" weight can wait! Holy crud!
    Last edited by DonSchap; 10-02-2008 at 09:57 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    LOL 90mm, 145mm front optics, camera lens, telescope, or uhf uplink device? the item in your photo I have used something like that, 3rd. generation soviet made starlight spotting scope, pretty darn cool when you need to see in the dark, not sure how that would interface with a DSLR sensor but if it could WOW night vision at 1.8 and then enhanced with light amplifiction plus a huge zoom ability, not talking small change here!
    is it Sigma who makes like a 1000mm 2.8 or something like that? it's like $20,000.00 and weighs around 40 pounds!!, who uses that and where?
    Sony A700_____________Minolta AF 50mm. F/1.7
    Minolta AF 70-210mm F/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII LD Asp. [IF]
    Tamron SP AF 70-200mm. F/2.8 DI LD [IF] Macro
    Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Tokina AF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5
    Tokina AF AT-X 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6
    http://flickr.com/

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,559

    Red face Oversized solutions ...

    Concerning the SIGMA AF 200-500mm f/2.8 lens ...

    Name:  sigma200500mm-big-001.jpg
Views: 267
Size:  16.5 KB

    I did the math on it and primary element is a bit larger than required, so I'm assuming there is some light loss due to the construction of the lens itself. It weighs 33 lbs! Think about that for a moment or two, the overall construction of most lenses is just air.

    When you add the 2x teleconverter on the end of it, it becomes a 400-1000 f/5.6 lens ... not still f/2.8

    The T/C cannot alter the physics of the design. 2 f/stops of light are lost.

    I would imagine this lens would meet a low-light requirement for indoor sports or one of Sean's football venues.

    Unfortunately (my back sure is not complaining, though ), it does not come in the SONY-mount. I guess they figured it would never be "handheld" ... LOL
    Last edited by DonSchap; 10-02-2008 at 10:00 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

Posting Permissions

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