Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Lightbulb SP AF 60mm f/2 Di LD 1:1 MACRO

    I truly believe the problem is that the lens really is relatively NEW on the market. It has only been available to the SONY crowd for a little over three months.

    Obviously, I am trying to give it some play, but people keep going on the cheap with the Minolta 50mm f/1.7 and SONY 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 as their PRIME solution to low light. And many MACRO shooters have the TAMRON SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 MACRO in their bag. The 90mm has had some very nice rebates on it in the past year or so, so their incentive is rather low.

    Thanks for the supportive analysis, though. It really should be the "next lens", for a lot of people, despite their mount.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 01-10-2010 at 09:57 PM.
    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

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    I truly believe the problem is that the lens really is relatively NEW on the market. It has only been available to the SONY crowd for a little over three months.
    true but the sony crowd is barely a blip in the radar. i haven't noticed it being embraced by the canon/ nikon users as much as i would have expected. i suppose they have a super cheap 50/1.8 or even the newer 1.4 for nikon users.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by dr4gon View Post
    The IQ of the Tamron lenses are actually excellent. It's the focus speed and build that just don't cut it. But you're righta bout getting fed up with the AF (on the 70-200/2.8).
    I will concede that, technically, the 13.8x zoom range of the Tamron is exceptional and it's a good one lens solution for holiday snaps.
    Never having owned any, I can't generalise about Tamron IQ but I do know someone who has the 28-250mm and regrets it.
    Anyone buying this lens is likely to make full use of the longer end and thats where it stinks; it's f6.3 from 150mm up and far from sharp.
    Worse, the AF is dog sloooooow; forget about follow focussing on your kids at soccer, you can only prefocus and hope your subject pops up.

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    ........ It you pair the 18-250 (most current incarnation of this lens for the SONY-mount) with this 60mm f/2, you have a one-two punch for indoors and outdoors. At f/2, the 60mm takes a terrific shot with your ISO at 1600 and your speed at 1/30th sec. under most indoor ambient light conditions (no flash required). That solves the lighting issue, right there, with one lens.

    Not only that, the 60mm mounted on an APS-C sensor camera (if you do not own a a850 or a900 DSLR … yours is one of these) represents a 90mm full frame shot, which for a 1:1 MACRO shot is correct length. So, another hurtle falls to just one lens.

    Outdoors, for flexibility, the 18-250 has no match. It can conveniently get the wide stuff and with a quick twist of the zoom ring, instantly reach across the park and zero-in with a 250mm close-up. It totally eliminates the need to change lenses. Again, if you desire to use this wide lens feature, indoors, you will, more than likely, need an external flash (SONY HVL-F42AM) to properly light a room.

    So, regardless of the flash, two lenses … that provide an awesome range of capabilities.

    I recommend you throw that “kit” lens away and start fresh with the

    TAMRON AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di–II LD Aspherical (IF) & TAMRON SP AF 60mm f/2 Di-II LD 1:1 MACRO (IF)
    This looks pretty unbalanced, pairing what looks like a decent Macro with a not so decent superzoom. Why do you assume a Newbie wants a Macro anyway?
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    YOU are a beginner photographer, in need of a low-cost solution. ............
    The AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) (SONY-Mount) comes in at around $499 … add that to the all-in-one 18-250 … and the package is a total of $1018, coupled with a 6-yr warranty for each new TAMRON lens. Admittedly, the 18-250 has some compromises built into it and the user will have to work a bit to correct for them, but still ... his/her wallet is a whole lot thicker for a while, while he/she is building up the stomach for the purchase of the "serious" glass.
    So, your best advice to a Novice DSLR user on a limited budget is to throw away a perfectly adequate 18-55mm kit lens and replace it with a decidedly mediocre Jack of all trades together with a specialist macro lens and spend a not inconsiderable $1008 in the process. The hypothetical newbie is now doomed to tread the upgrade path so many have followed in the past shedding many more $$ in the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Anyone else have a better suggestion? Remember, the “cost conscious” beginner is a 'tough cookie' to convince of things "photographic" that he/she may not have any knowledge of … yet.
    Yes, pretty much ignore this advice. If you are seriously considering this superzoom, re-examine your reasons for getting into the DSLR market. There really is little point in investing in a DSLR and then turning it into a P&S.

    I'm assuming that, as a Newbie you
    Want better than P&S
    You got an 18-55mm SAM with your DSLR
    You want something with a wider aperture and
    Something with a longer focal length (assuming you didn't get the 55-200 kit )

    So, what's sensible for low light?
    [$200] will get you a Minolta 35mm f2 (standard) lens plus a Minolta 50mm f1.7 which is not bad for portraits. You may also want to consider the Sony AF DT 30 F2.8 Macro SAM for similar money which offers a more or less standard FOV lens but with 1:1 macro capability.
    Moving up you get the
    [ $400]Sony AF 50 F1.4
    [$1400]Sony AF 35 F1.4 G

    At the longer focal length, the only decent, budget something I know at around $150 is the venerable 70-210mm Beercan; the lens isn't perfect but does nothing really badly. Don will hold that there is no Warranty but who cares at the price and these things are built like tanks, the fact that they were made in the 80's and still going strong tells you something. Just take normal precautions and ask specifically about the condition of the optical elements, about fungus, a "snappy" iris and smoothness in the focus ring and zoom. If it's on eBay, a seller with good feedback will not lie about it.

    There are other second hand choices out there but I'm not a fan of Sigma and I'd avoid the Tamron which has serious AF problems as many here will testify. So the next step up, for me, is the [$800] Sony AF 70-300 F4.5-5.6 G SSM and the [$1800] Sony AF 70-200 F2.8 G SSM neither of which is remotely "budget".

    In summary, Don is offering a $1000 spend and the Tamron duo of the 18-250mm and a 60mm Macro.
    My choices
    [$400]
    Keep the 18-55mm SAM and add a 70-210mm Beercan, a Minolta 35mm f2 and Minolta 50mm f1.7
    or
    Keep the 18-55mm SAM and add a 70-210mm Beercan and Sony AF DT 30 F2.8 Macro SAM

    [$600]
    Keep the 18-55mm SAM and add a 70-210mm Beercan and Sony AF 50 F1.4

    [$1000]
    Keep the 18-55mm SAM and add a 70-300G SSM and either the 35/50mm Minolta Duo or the Sony 30mm Macro.

    At the end of the day it's up to the individual to set his/her own priorities. If we, as supposedly knowledgeable users, give advice it should be based on sound principles and not with a blinkered attitude.
    Last edited by Peekayoh; 01-11-2010 at 06:51 AM. Reason: grammar

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Oh stop, Ryan.

    At least there are plans ... Canon/Nikon NEVER planned any PRIME or MACRO lens solutions to their lack of stabilization. Don't believe me ... go ahead and mount an EF 135mm f/2.8 and shoot wide open at 1/15th of a second, ISO 400 ... and see how that works for ya. Nice and sharp looking, is it not? NOT!

    You just lost patience. Hey, it's okay ... the line is long.

    One thing I have noticed about camera-people ... patient about equipment and releases, they are not!
    The difference is I can use ISO-1600 on my 7D and get that shutter speed to a reasonable level. That is the main reason why I switched to Canon.
    -Paul-
    Canon 7D - Canon 17-55 IS USM - Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS - Canon 50mm f/1.8 - Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 - Canon 430EX II Speedlite


  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    Quote Originally Posted by fdexclpl View Post
    The difference is I can use ISO-1600 on my 7D and get that shutter speed to a reasonable level. That is the main reason why I switched to Canon.
    IS is better than no IS if you ask me.

    I took this shot with the 18-55mm IS kit lens on the 7D hand held:



    Camera: Canon EOS 7D
    Exposure: 0.067 sec (1/15)
    Aperture: f/5.0
    Focal Length: 18 mm
    ISO Speed: 3200

    Now imagine me not having an IS lens....it would have been a total disaster unless I had a tripod with me since I was already at ISO 3200.
    In this case I maxed out the ISO capability (didn't want to use anything above 3200) and IS is what saved my butt.

    ISO can only take you so far in my particular case. I miss stabilization on shorter primes but I'll have to live with it. If I get another zoom, it will be one with IS and nothing else.

    ISO is nice to have but IS + ISO is even better than either or.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by Elisha82 View Post
    IS is better than no IS if you ask me.

    I took this shot with the 18-55mm IS kit lens on the 7D hand held:



    Camera: Canon EOS 7D
    Exposure: 0.067 sec (1/15)
    Aperture: f/5.0
    Focal Length: 18 mm
    ISO Speed: 3200

    Now imagine me not having an IS lens....it would have been a total disaster unless I had a tripod with me since I was already at ISO 3200.
    In this case I maxed out the ISO capability (didn't want to use anything above 3200) and IS is what saved my butt.

    ISO can only take you so far in my particular case. I miss stabilization on shorter primes but I'll have to live with it. If I get another zoom, it will be one with IS and nothing else.

    ISO is nice to have but IS + ISO is even better than either or.
    Very cool image. I'm sure it would show better blown up, but it is pretty amazing to see ISO 3200, with dark objects, and showing so little noise. But the image itself, the gesture, composition, whatever (the part that matters) is really nice.
    Jason Hamilton
    Selective Frame

    EOS 5D - Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 35 f/2, EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II, EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 (with EOS adapter), 430EX, Canon S90
    Nikon FE - Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI'd, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI, F to EF adapter, 2xVivitar 285, other lighting stuff
    Mamiya C220 - 80mm f/2.8

    Gear List flickr

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    Thanks Jason.

    Now here's one shot in the same building but with a 17-40mm f/4L hand held as well:



    Camera: Canon EOS 7D
    Exposure: 0.025 sec (1/40)
    Aperture: f/4.0
    Focal Length: 33 mm
    ISO Speed: 3200

    Processing accentuated the noise but I don't mind since I'm trying to portray something old/rusty/abandoned anyway.
    But if you look closely, there is a little bit of motion blur even though the SS was more than the focal length.

    IS would have made this shot better but the 17-40L did not have it.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

Posting Permissions

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