Imagemaster wrote:
A couple of examples of the 100-400 with 1.4x TC and 2x TC, from a highjacker.
Disregarding the crop advantage from the camera, you are paying a penalty on your 100-400mm by adding the 2x by slowing it down even more than the Tamron. The Tamron is already slow enough to deal with.
I use my 100-400mm with the 1.4x but that is as slow a lens as I want to deal with.
I believe the Tammy will do as well as your shots shown here. It has it's weakness but it is a reasonably sharp lens.
I have done a lot of comparing the two and you would not want to try and live on the difference between the 100-400mm with a converter and the Tamron without.
IMHO. as always, of course.
I've got to try to figure out why that is happening. It's got something to do with doing all my posting from an iPad and getting the images, via the cloud, onto the iPad. I'll figure it out shortly. In the meantime I'll manually post the settings later today.
Jeff Donald wrote:
I've got to try to figure out why that is happening. It's got something to do with doing all my posting from an iPad and getting the images, via the cloud, onto the iPad. I'll figure it out shortly. In the meantime all manually post the settings later today.
I'm not the one who asked but, Thanks,
I wish everyone would check to add the exif when they post in all the forums on here. When you are still in"learning" mode it's helpful to see what they were shot at.
Thanks for the hint on exif. My last posts on the Nature forum had missing exif even though I checked to display exif when uploading. Didn't have that problem on my prior posting.
I use Lightroom and don't use Save for Web. I'm using an iOS app called Mosaic to sync select shots via the Cloud to my iPad, so I have examples to upload from the iPad. Somewhere in the workflow the EXIF is getting striped out, but I'm not sure where
b&h notified me that my order of 4/22 finally shipped and should be here early next week.
The serial number is in the 0050xx range so I am a bit concerned that this might have traveled cross-country a few times. I seem to recall that recent deliveries were in the 7000 or 9000 range?
I called Tamron with the serial number and they could not say if it has the updated firmware already.
For what it is worth, I was told that the next batch of 150-600's should be hitting stores late next week (Aug 10 or 13th at the latest). According to the sales person I spoke to (who has always given me accurate info in the past), the Tamron rep said that the next shipment from Japan will be arriving at their warehouses on Monday (Aug 6) , then shipped out to dealers on Tuesday, who should get them by Friday or the following Monday at the latest.
Of course I have no way to verify this beyond what I was told, but the sales person, who I do a lot of business with, has always done his best to keep me in the loop on gear I'm waiting for... so hopefully this offers some hope to those people who have been waiting a while... myself included.
ebiggs wrote:
I think Tamron farms out the making of the parts for this lens to various small shops around China and has no idea when a lens is actually made.
I use Lightroom and don't use Save for Web. I'm using an iOS app called Mosaic to sync select shots via the Cloud to my iPad, so I have examples to upload from the iPad. Somewhere in the workflow the EXIF is getting striped out, but I'm not sure where
Strange EXIF. It shows neither the camera nor the lens.
Just spotted 2 picts from Imagemaster on p. 4.
These are relatively small (1000 px?) photos.
The first is poor, but the heron is terrible and this is 1D4 with 100-400+doubler? I'm puzzeled. Is this a monstrous crop or something else went astray?
Lan11 wrote:
Just spotted 2 picts from Imagemaster on p. 4.
These are relatively small (1000 px?) photos.
The first is poor, but the heron is terrible and this is 1D4 with 100-400+doubler? I'm puzzeled. Is this a monstrous crop or something else went astray?
Why don't you show us some examples you have taken with a 100-400 plus 2x TC? Or are you just mouthing off some more?
Imagemaster wrote:
And this speculation is based on what facts
I have no facts at all. It is just based on observation. I have had the pleasure to handle a few of these and now my own. One thing the serial numbers are all over the place with no seemly relationship to a date.
Also the inability of Tamron to tell any history on any given lens. Plus Tamron's past problems with quality control in the past.
They may all be made in Chairman Mao Zedong's living room for all I really know.
Imagermaster wrote: Who cares what you would bother with? Why don't you show us some of your great images."
Of course you don’t have to bother with what I and others wouldn’t bother :-)
If you don’t understand why I don’t post pictures here, I’ll tell you. It is simple. Because it would be ridiculous to pay for showing them. Unless I had an overinflated ego or irresistible urge to impress others or (false) hope to sell some prints. I think that the owner of this forum, and a multimillionaire, should be paying people who display solid work and thus promote his site.
As far as photo gear, I recall your perennial squabbles with PetKal, unless I’m confusing you with someone else, claiming that the lesser gear (like an ancient 100-400, noisy 7D… etc.) can equal performance of the top Canon line, yet your pictures always fail to support these claims.
This time you like the Tamron budget lens. It may be adequate for many, but not for me, and I have the same right to express my opinion as you.
