Yeah, I can't wait to put it on my 1Dmk1! Need more light that what we have today. Using it on my 6D, it feels like a long lens. Using it on my t5i at 600, it feels more like a scope. It's wild to see how far this lens can see!
Kris Reiswig wrote:
I am pleasantly surprised that I can micro adjust both ends of this lens on my Canon 6D. It totally recognizes the lens and lists it correctly. I too agree that this will not necessarily compete with the big whites, but for us folks that only had a 100-400, it is a most welcome addition!
That is great to hear! Nice to know the information channels are open between Canon and Tamron in software workings. This could be very beneficial. I am anxious to see your results
Karl
Kris, congratulations I bet you're having fun, and you have a lot of envious people waiting for any new info! Would you be able to check the amount of focus breathing for me? Basically in live view focus at 150mm then zoom in and see if the subject stays focused? The 100-400 is a terrible in this regard, which is understandable since the whole focusing group moves when zooming, and it looks like on the tamron the focus group is in the rear and doesn't move much, so I'm hoping it will be better. For wildlife video work it will hopefully be a lot smoother than using the 100-400 with the jerky zooming and focus shift.
Kris Reiswig wrote:
Yeah, I can't wait to put it on my 1Dmk1! Need more light that what we have today. Using it on my 6D, it feels like a long lens. Using it on my t5i at 600, it feels more like a scope. It's wild to see how far this lens can see!
I'd love to see examples shot in better light with lower ISO speeds used and also with faster shutter speeds (for a given focal length) to remove any possibility of motion blur affecting the perceived IQ of the lens.
I'm not sure if the photos are just slightly soft or whether ISO 1000 on the 70D just doesn't reveal as much detail as I would expect.
I have a few friends who may be interested in this lens as a cheap way of getting some extra length how did you find the AF?
Compared to out two 100-400's it gets close to our 11 year old one but its no where near our newer one.
As for the 200-400 or primes i wouldn't bother comparing as its not even in the same state.
At web size the images come up ok but at full rez you get what you are paying for.
Looks like a cheap entry level zoom that with some post will give some nice mid resolution images that quite a few people will be very happy with.
The full size samples are very helpful, thanks a lot... Sure, the conditions aren't the most flattering for sharpness testing (flat low light) but your conditions and settings are realistic for a lot of wildlife encounters (I don't mind bumping up to higher ISOs to get faster shutter speeds than 1/focal though). In my judgement the sharpness looks about the same as my average 100-400 copy, and will probably take about the same amount of processing to look tack sharp (which is understandable at this price point). I imagine with a high end prime at the same focal lengths at 100% you can tell exactly where the focus point was and get more fine fur definition than these samples show, so it will be interesting to see comparison shots, even though the primes and 200-400 are out of my price range.
Also reminds me why I like to shoot bears at f8 when there's enough light, to at least get the tip of the nose all the way to the eye in focus so in a large print it looks natural like the bear is right in front of you. The sharpness and noise usually isn't pretty at 100% but looks amazing in print form, so I understand that these slightly soft photos are still quite good and pixel peeping is only useful if you plan to print big, which I do (my portfolio size is 12x18 and I print up to 30x45").
Thanks again, there's a lot to think about and consider!
My worry is not a single shot has anything in sharp focus, no example of fine hair detail and I'm wondering if it's the 70D or lens or both. ISO 1000 is not that high for image to mush up. It looks like focus was never properly achieved maybe due to the very low contrast of the doberman.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
My worry is not a single shot has anything in sharp focus, no example of fine hair detail and I'm wondering if it's the 70D or lens or both. ISO 1000 is not that high for image to mush up. It looks like focus was never properly achieved maybe due to the very low contrast of the doberman.
My thought is that it's a combination of many things: poor light, ISO 1000 (on a crop sensor), micro-motion-blur (1/focal length shutter speed is typically not fast enough for high density sensors), potential focus issues, and the optical characteristics of the lens itself.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
My worry is not a single shot has anything in sharp focus, no example of fine hair detail and I'm wondering if it's the 70D or lens or both. ISO 1000 is not that high for image to mush up. It looks like focus was never properly achieved maybe due to the very low contrast of the doberman.
That is what I see as well, and this has been the 3rd link posted here on FM showing essentially the same thing. I'm starting to get less optimistic.
I can't believe the opinions being formed over casually shot dog images. No offense to big country but I don't think these are any indication of IQ and sharpness. Heck I own a cheap Tamron 70-300 that is sweetly sharp. Are we really going to judge a new lens from such simple shots and on a non micro adjusted body for the lens? Would we accept that for a new canon lens?
I am not quick to judge by casual shots. Detail in fur and feathers takes technique and proper focus and DOF. At such close proximity we are very limited on any DOF. I still think the goods of this lens are soon to come!
I have seen very poor image quality posted with $15k worth of gear the same gear I see exquisite images come from. Best to not make judgement yet and keep an open mind😉
Karl📷
