Imagemaster wrote:
No idea why you are degrading your images with such high ISO's when you don't need shutter speeds that high.
Tony, & everyone else that chimed in with suggestions.
I'll try the lower ISO settings. I'm sure it'll help. Thanks for the advice. Maybe it'll be sunny some tomorrow and we'll be able to see the difference.
Karl Witt wrote:
Here are a few from a brief shoot in light. I feel my copy needs a bit of MA but not an option on my 5D classic.
posting original shot and then cropped and processed as I normally would do
Karl
They're good shots but like you said without even testing MA it appears to be front focusing a little bit just looking at them on the screen. Too bad 5D classic doesn't offer that feature.
I'm glad my 5d mkII and 7D both offer the feature but the 5D mkIII offers it at both end of the zoom making it even better.
dsr1 wrote:
I had some sun today so I got to try out my lens in good conditions . These are as good as I could get using a bean bag from my truck. All are heavely cropped with NR and light sharpening.
I'm amazed by the "subjective" quality, especially of the Yellowlegs.
At 90 yards / 270 feet I assume that bird would have been a miniscule "speck" on the sensor.
For such a degree of resizing, I'm surprised that even "that much" detail could be retrieved.
In AI Servo, the lens will not change focus in the 450-600mm range when I focus on something close then focus on something distant. In reverse, it will refocus. It does not matter in which position the focus-limiter is set. And the near subject I focus on is not closer than the MFD anyway. This problem occurs with both my 7D & 1D4.
It is going back to the retailer for a refund. Unfortunately, I will be out the return shipping cost.
Will I get another one? Maybe later, when I see better BIF series shots that are sharper. So far, I have only seen so-so shots of large birds in flight or soaring. I have yet to see any BIF shots of smaller, faster birds that I consider excellent shots. JMO
I'm convinced that I've got a rotten egg. I set up my blind 10 yds from my feeder where there is a downed elm tree with lots of perches for birds to land on. Took about 150 shots and they all stink. I used a monopod, shot wide open and stopped down. Kept a fast shutter speed to avoid motion blur.
Not much detail in juncos or chickadees.
Sending it back.
JVthePT wrote:
I'm convinced that I've got a rotten egg. I set up my blind 10 yds from my feeder where there is a downed elm tree with lots of perches for birds to land on. Took about 150 shots and they all stink. I used a monopod, shot wide open and stopped down. Kept a fast shutter speed to avoid motion blur.
Not much detail in juncos or chickadees.
Sending it back.
That's unfortunate because it is just those types of shots that the lens should be very useful for. Can we see some samples with EXIF intact? Original size as well as your final crop? I'm still considering the lens as a lightweight option.
Sy Sez wrote:
I'm amazed by the "subjective" quality, especially of the Yellowlegs.
At 90 yards / 270 feet I assume that bird would have been a miniscule "speck" on the sensor.
For such a degree of resizing, I'm surprised that even "that much" detail could be retrieved.
Leigh
www.leighwax.com
Leigh,
Of course I'm guessing at the 90 yards but it was taken off a 40" high dam and at least 60-70 yards out from the dam. Like you said the bird was quite small in the view finder. I's funny that all the birds were behind the dam and I couldn't get any closer in my truck.
I when back to check and the long end of the crop was 2-1/4" out of a 11" image on my screen (quite drastic by my standards). The Helican Filter program does't give % of crop buy I think I'm pretty close on the 90 yards. I was supprised that it turned out as good as it did.
Maybe using the suggestions I've been given here and micro adjusting the lensI can do better. I'm not worried about BIF cause I shake to much to hand hold the lens for panning.
People call the 100-400 a "dust pump" i have not experienced that. but the tamron is already collecting some. Doesn't bother me, but i know it bothers some.
big country wrote:
People call the 100-400 a "dust pump" i have not experienced that. but the tamron is already collecting some. Doesn't bother me, but i know it bothers some.
Jason, poor craftsmen tend to blame their tools.
"I've got dust in my lens", "My lens doesn't focus good", "My lens is too heavy", etc.
I say to them, practice some more, and if that doesn't work, try another photography type, such as landscape.
big country wrote:
People call the 100-400 a "dust pump" i have not experienced that. but the tamron is already collecting some. Doesn't bother me, but i know it bothers some.
My ex co-worker, the one who got me started in photography many years ago, once related a story about a guy who drop his lens that resulted in damage to outside glass of the lens (small crack apparently). Apparently he was still able to use the lens, I'm assuming closer to wide open then not. How true that is I don't know. The moral is, that I doubt a little dust will render the lens useless. Now a ton of dust I don't know.
Went out yesterday with 1DMKIII, I too have an AF problem on continuous focus. A call to Tamron service confirms they are aware of the problem but strangely they did not experience it in field testing for them.
So, this will be most frustrating for those that can be using their lenses a lot right now. I will continue to work on my static results and will work with Lens Align, or FoCal to do a proper Micro Adjust. In my limited testing I think I have experienced inconsistent focus at the 600mm range. I plan on giving the lens a good work out with the FoCal by Reikan software to analyze better as well as test it on actual subjects.
I'm going to hang in here and be patient as well as understanding as long as Tamron shows me they are sincere in pursuing the problems I/we are experiencing and works with me and keeps me informed. It seems that they do NOT have direct access to Canon's technology on AF and they have to do a work around to make things work.
Karl Witt wrote:
Went out yesterday with 1DMKIII, I too have an AF problem on continuous focus. A call to Tamron service confirms they are aware of the problem but strangely they did not experience it in field testing for them.
So, this will be most frustrating for those that can be using their lenses a lot right now. I will continue to work on my static results and will work with Lens Align, or FoCal to do a proper Micro Adjust. In my limited testing I think I have experienced inconsistent focus at the 600mm range. I plan on giving the lens a good work out with the FoCal by Reikan software to analyze better as well as test it on actual subjects.
I'm going to hang in here and be patient as well as understanding as long as Tamron shows me they are sincere in pursuing the problems I/we are experiencing and works with me and keeps me informed. It seems that they do NOT have direct access to Canon's technology on AF and they have to do a work around to make things work.
Karl, it is strange that this wouldn't show up in their testing. Maybe their testing isn't as thorough as I would have presumed? However, it's good to read that Tamron is acknowledging there is a problem, rather than dodging and weaving. That's the first step to addressing it in a forthright manner.
big country wrote:
People call the 100-400 a "dust pump" i have not experienced that.
When I owned the 100-400, as I zoomed from 400mm to 100mm, I could notice air coming out of the battery compartment (20D).
The same happens with my current 28-300 and 5DMIII.
So "air pumps" they certainly are.
If they are dust pumps or not, well, I can't really tell because I never had problems with dust, either on the 100-400/20D combo or 28-300/5DMIII.
OMMV.
