Yes + 12 and plus 13 could be different cameras or at different FL's . My 35-350 is minus at 35 and plus at 350 mm . I don't remember the numbers but wrote them down and keep in camera bag .
Who you talk to will determine why lenses need MAing . So Canon could lower / raise their tolerances or so you could use non canon lenses .
PCKit, I tried the DOTtune method on mine as well. It would give confirming "beep" at both +20 and -20 both wide and tele. So essentially useless. Seems mine is not real accurate with focus in real life applications either.
Spent a couple of hours shooting geese, eagles, pigeons, etc yesterday and took 256 pics to yield a handful of useable images.
I want this lebs to produce so badly but I just can't sit and wait for it. So, I think mine is going back to B&H and I'll start looking for alternatives again.
JVthePT wrote:
PCKit, I tried the DOTtune method on mine as well. It would give confirming "beep" at both +20 and -20 both wide and tele. So essentially useless. Seems mine is not real accurate with focus in real life applications either.
Spent a couple of hours shooting geese, eagles, pigeons, etc yesterday and took 256 pics to yield a handful of useable images.
I want this lebs to produce so badly but I just can't sit and wait for it. So, I think mine is going back to B&H and I'll start looking for alternatives again.
I would seriously consider either the 400L f/5.6 or 100-400 as both with a 1.4 TC to give you 560mm at f/8 (if you have a 5D3) are sounding like they still may be better than this lens in the AF department. IQ wise they are probably about equal. However, if not on a 5D3 (or 1DX or other 1 series) then the decision is harder as you are stuck at 400mm.
Yes that is a problem as I use a 70d and a 6d.
Thinking about the Sigma 150-500 or 50-500.
Also considering a 300L with 1.4x TC.
arbitrage wrote:
I would seriously consider either the 400L f/5.6 or 100-400 as both with a 1.4 TC to give you 560mm at f/8 (if you have a 5D3) are sounding like they still may be better than this lens in the AF department. IQ wise they are probably about equal. However, if not on a 5D3 (or 1DX or other 1 series) then the decision is harder as you are stuck at 400mm.
I too want to like it so much, mostly because of the compactness and weight. It is just a delight to handle. BUT, I MA'd my 1DIV yesterday and only got AF conformation at +17 to +20. I kept checking what I was doing as it was so far off. Also, the only reason I have been MAing it is because of the lack of sharpness and I usually don't bother as I am not so picky that I am obsessive about it. None or my other lenses are MA'd. They were all sharp enough to satisy me without it. Today I am going to do my 7D with the Tamron, then I am going to stick another lens on one of them just to make sure it is the lens and not something HUA I am doing or something with one of my cameras but hard to imaging that 2 cameras that perform well otherwise just have trouble with this lens.
As much as I would love to have a setup that allowed me to take a 150 600 and DSLR and 24 70II all in my little Canon backpack for day trips I am thinking mine is going back and I may just use my 300 with 2X until I see what Canon comes out with this year. A 400 5.6 with IS or new 100 400 with faster AF and better IS is looking awfully good right now.
And used on a rebel T2i (correction this shot is on the 1D X) as explained in the review, see:
"Canon states that all bodies except the 5D MkIII and the 1D series require a lens that is f/5.6 or brighter for auto focus to work. Lindsay used the Tamron, which is f/6.3 at 600mm, on her Rebel T2i. Auto focus functioned perfectly for her. It appears that there will be no AF problems on Canon bodies, even though it is theoretically 0.33 f-stops too dark."
So Canon DSLR shouldn't matter. Sure the Canon 600mm is slightly sharper and definitely more contrast, as shown in the 100% crop comparison of the hawk, but at a huge cost.
This owl shot is an example of the soft shots I'm seeing from this lens. I think you could uprez by 150% the same shot from a 400 5.6 and it would look better and sharper, and it would be at shot at f5.6.
I'm just being objective as I look at all of these shots. I don't own the lens and have no reason to be pro or con about it.
mark fadely wrote:
This owl shot is an example of the soft shots I'm seeing from this lens.
Yes, the sharpness of the owl looks borderline to me. But, look at the grass below and to the left of the owl, which seems sharper. Looks like it might have just missed focus, as shutter speed is pretty high. Also, I wouldn't expect 300/2.8/II sharpness from this lens. But if it can give something decent, or perhaps better with a little PP, then you have to consider it a success for $1k.
Really, the red tail in that review is a better discussion. Canon 600 side by side with the Tamron. You can see that the Canon is certainly better (and I'd say by more than the "very close" margin the reviewer says). But, I will never have the opportunity to shoot the Canon. The Tamron, on the other hand, I could order today if I wanted.
Also, that reviewer mentions something else relevant to the discussion, and that is the handling concerns. The snowy owl was shot handheld, and the camera wasn't even in shooting position when the bird took off. With the Canon, trying to pan, mounted on the essentially required (and expensive) tripod with gimbal mount, you might not get that shot at all.
JVthePT wrote:
PCKit, I tried the DOTtune method on mine as well. It would give confirming "beep" at both +20 and -20 both wide and tele. So essentially useless. Seems mine is not real accurate with focus in real life applications either.
that's weird with the dot-tune.
not to offend.... did you turn auto focus off after you established initial focus in live view?
Well I think so. Followed the instructions from the website. But now I'm concerned that I may not have done that, second guessing a little. I will re-do tonight and see if it changes anything.
dgdg wrote:
that's weird with the dot-tune.
not to offend.... did you turn auto focus off after you established initial focus in live view?
mark fadely wrote:
This owl shot is an example of the soft shots I'm seeing from this lens. I think you could uprez by 150% the same shot from a 400 5.6 and it would look better and sharper, and it would be at shot at f5.6.
I'm just being objective as I look at all of these shots. I don't own the lens and have no reason to be pro or con about it.
If you are being objective, you have to look at other images taken by the same photographer with Canon lenses.
Since the owl shot was taken with a 1DX, it is apparent that it has been cropped a fair bit. Try downloading the image, then downsize and apply some sharpening. I highly doubt that a shot taken with the 400 f5.6 AT THE SAME DISTANCE and uprezzed would look as good.
I also happen to find that most images posted on some other sites using any gear are not up to the quality of images posted on this site.
ScooberJake wrote:
Yes, the sharpness of the owl looks borderline to me. But, look at the grass below and to the left of the owl, which seems sharper. Looks like it might have just missed focus, as shutter speed is pretty high. Also, I wouldn't expect 300/2.8/II sharpness from this lens. But if it can give something decent, or perhaps better with a little PP, then you have to consider it a success for $1k.
Really, the red tail in that review is a better discussion. Canon 600 side by side with the Tamron. You can see that the Canon is certainly better (and I'd say by more than the "very close" margin the reviewer says). But, I will never have the opportunity to shoot the Canon. The Tamron, on the other hand, I could order today if I wanted.
Also, that reviewer mentions something else relevant to the discussion, and that is the handling concerns. The snowy owl was shot handheld, and the camera wasn't even in shooting position when the bird took off. With the Canon, trying to pan, mounted on the essentially required (and expensive) tripod with gimbal mount, you might not get that shot at all....Show more →
Imagemaster wrote:
If you are being objective, you have to look at other images taken by the same photographer with Canon lenses.
Since the owl shot was taken with a 1DX, it is apparent that it has been cropped a fair bit. Try downloading the image, then downsize and apply some sharpening. I highly doubt that a shot taken with the 400 f5.6 AT THE SAME DISTANCE and uprezzed would look as good.
I also happen to find that most images posted on some other sites using any gear are not up to the quality of images posted on this site.
Hey Guys,
I'm just saying that a lot of the 100% crops from the Tamron at 600mm look worse than what I see when I go back and enlarge sharp shots from my 400 5.6 to 150%. You may imagine something different because you are shooting under the spell of 600mm, but give it a try with some of your own shots and you may be surprised. I'm talking BIF shots of course.
Your suggestion is certainly worthy of consideration, but I wonder how much of the Tamron's seeming lack of sharpness in some of these examples is due to photographer error and/or unfamiliarity with long focal lengths and shooting BIF. Asides from Tony's couple shots, I don't think I have seen anything from anyone who I KNOW shoots BIF regularly with consistently good results.
Like you, I don't have the lens and no rooting interest either way.
I'm just saying that a lot of the 100% crops from the Tamron at 600mm look worse than what I see when I go back and enlarge sharp shots from my 400 5.6 to 150%. You may imagine something different because you are shooting under the spell of 600mm, but give it a try with some of your own shots and you may be surprised. I'm talking BIF shots of course. ...Show more →
You're comparing a very good prime to a zoom lens. I had the 400 5.6 and it was the best lens I ever had and sorry I got rid of it. However, I got rid of it in favor of the 100-400 for it's flexibility. At the time, I couldn't justify keeping both lens.
In addition, you're comparing a lens that's been out for a couple of weks compared to one that's been out for years. A much smaller sample size with the Tamron.
We are still in the early learning stages with this lens. Unless I see a shot from someone who I know their abilities in both shooting and processing I am going to be doubtful of the results. Unless someone states they have taken the time to do a Micro Adjust at the extreme end I will be cautious of the results.
Mark I respect your talent and abilities, would be great if you could get your hands on the Tamron to shoot and evaluate it, you can borrow mine if you like Comparing the Canon 400 @ 5.6 and the Tamron at 400 f5.6 would likely be indistinguishable, there certainly is more DOF at 400 then at 600mm where the 600 will be unforgiving if not properly calibrated to body and focused on target was we know. I just looked through a bunch of images of a friends with Canon 500 f/4 IS that were all soft, a victim of Micro Adjust that is needed.
There are several using the lens that I am sure are very happy with their results, very happy with their reach and very very happy with what they have spent And then there are those (us) that have shot with the most expensive and the very best that are trying to match that performance and IQ with a lens that costs substantially less................this is where the proofing comes into play. The build quality of the Tamron in hand is excellent, the color that I am pulling from it is most pleasing. Now, with a bit of finessing if I can extract the pinpoint sharpness I need and many of us need/want we will have quite the lens. Yes there is still an issue hanging on AF stop/start but I believe that will be corrected or solved as more info to Tamron is reported.
I want it to work and I want it to work in an amazing way, I will share my positives as well as negatives as they are proven by me on my copy and my gear with my abilities I am keeping an open and positive and receptive mindset for the lens...............
Karl
Comparing the Canon 400 @ 5.6 and the Tamron at 400 f5.6 would likely be indistinguishable, there certainly is more DOF at 400 then at 600mm where the 600 will be unforgiving if not properly calibrated to body and focused on target was we know. I just looked through a bunch of images of a friends with Canon 500 f/4 IS that were all soft, a victim of Micro Adjust that is needed.
And then there are those (us) that have shot with the most expensive and the very best that are trying to match that performance and IQ with a lens that costs substantially less................this is where the proofing comes into play. The build quality of the Tamron in hand is excellent, the color that I am pulling from it is most pleasing. Now, with a bit of finessing if I can extract the pinpoint sharpness I need and many of us need/want we will have quite the lens. Yes there is still an issue hanging on AF stop/start but I believe that will be corrected or solved as more info to Tamron is reported.