keepcoding wrote:
Except that some reviews show that it performs excellent (e.g. Dustin Abbott).
And when comparing the MTF of both lenses, they should basically perform the same:
We have 100-130lp/mm sensors (7iv, Riv and everything in between), so MTF charts testing at 30lp/mm is not helpful
Edit: I saw the DA review, very poorly done. It seems made just to make the lens look good. he only compared it against the 200-600 and very briefly at that. The comparisons against itself at different apertures were completely worthless, this lens is very slow in the first place, wide open performance is far and away the most important
Nah, it's not that easy. In actual shooting there are too many external factors that affect final IQ, e.g. slight movement, atmospheric conditions, etc.
I mean shooting test charts, you can see it, but in real life I rarely clearly see the difference between lenses suposedly super sharp and just sharp.
j4nu wrote:
Nah, it's not that easy. In actual shooting there are too many external factors that affect final IQ, e.g. slight movement, atmospheric conditions, etc.
I mean shooting test charts, you can see it, but in real life I rarely clearly see the difference between lenses suposedly super sharp and just sharp.
Rack the shutter speed up and movement problem goes away, I know people who swear on 1/5000 minimum for wildlife with the 100-400GM
taking a portrait, atmospheric conditions don’t come into play either
Regardless, 30lp/mm is absolutely not the right target in 2022 given the cameras we are using, 70-80 lp/mm is more reasonable
aCuria wrote:
Rack the shutter speed up and movement problem goes away, I know people who swear on 1/5000 minimum for wildlife with the 100-400GM
taking a portrait, atmospheric conditions don’t come into play either
Regardless, 30lp/mm is absolutely not the right target in 2022 given the cameras we are using, 70-80 lp/mm is more reasonable
Yes, in a controlled environment (i.e. test charts )...
I think MTFs published by manufacturers today provide information meaningful for actual shooting (as long as they are actually based on testing, not computed).
Thank you @jtra for sharing your extensive review on the Tamron 50-400. To me it looks like a very nice lens to have for landscapes. I'm very happy with my Tamron 28-200, so I guess I'd find this bad boy to be more than adequate for my needs. 50-400 and a wide angle to go with it, and you have it all pretty much covered with just two lenses!
aCuria wrote:
Rack the shutter speed up and movement problem goes away, I know people who swear on 1/5000 minimum for wildlife with the 100-400GM
taking a portrait, atmospheric conditions don’t come into play either
Regardless, 30lp/mm is absolutely not the right target in 2022 given the cameras we are using, 70-80 lp/mm is more reasonable
Not at all. 30 lp/mm is more than enough for pretty much anything for majority of people(and photgraphers). Going to extremes makes no sense and would only add(big money) cost to an already costly glass.
Immortal wrote:
Not at all. 30 lp/mm is more than enough for pretty much anything for majority of people(and photgraphers). Going to extremes makes no sense and would only add(big money) cost to an already costly glass.
btw, a FF sensor capable of exactly 30 lp/mm would have a resolution of 2160x1440, which is ~3MP!
In 2001, when Canon released the 4MP 1D they tested lenses at 30 lp/mm and this made perfect sense.
However in 2022, with 34MP sensors on the entry A7iv (100 lp/mm) should we not at least test the lenses at 70-80 lp/mm?
p.11 #11 · Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD
keepcoding wrote:
Aren't you forgetting the Bayer matrix? 3MP would be on a monochrome sensor, 12MP on a standard sensor.
The iso standard test charts are black and white and dont care about chroma, so if you mount a perfect lens on that A7iv sensor and point your lens at the test chart afaik you should get a reading that says 100 lp/mm
The color part is more complicated. The bayer pattern is successful in part because it captures full vertical and horizontal resolution in the green channel, the A7IV is still 100 lp/mm for vertical and horizontal green lines.
However the green channel does lose resolution for diagonal lines (A7IV = 71lp/mm)
For the red and blue channels its 71 lp/mm in the diagonal directions and 50 lp/mm in the vertical and horizontal directions.
This is why I think testing at 70-80 lp/mm is important.
Dont forget that if we consider the A7RV instead of the A7IV then you may want to test at even higher lp/mm counts...
I have looked at their crops from center/DX corner/FX corner to see if they have improvement between f/8 and f/11 which is something I did not test in my review.
In test chart crops I see the DX corner is always good enough, but FX corner often shows astigmatism where sharpness in one direction is ok and it is bad in direction perpendicular to it.
Test chart crops, FX corner quality and improvement from stopping down:
50mm: bad, no improvement
70mm: good enough at f/8
100mm: good enough at f/8
200mm: better at f/11 compared to f/8
300mm: better at f/11 compared to f/8
400mm: good enough at f/8
For landscape crops, FX corner quality and improvement from stopping down:
50mm: not great, but improved at f/11 compared to f/8
70mm: good, a bit worse at f/11 compared to f/8
100mm: good, a bit worse at f/11 compared to f/8
200mm: great, the same at f/11 as f/8
300mm: great, the same at f/11 as f/8, some waviness due to air haze
400mm: good, improved at f/11 compared to f/8, some waviness due to air haze
So it is almost completely different where stopping to f/11 helps on landscape than on a test chart. So it shows that testing distance matters with this lens.
p.11 #14 · Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD
Finally pulled the trigger on this lens.
Really enjoying it so far, not missing anything compared to the 100-400 GM.
AF is just excellent, much better than on the Sigma 100-400mm.
p.11 #15 · Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD
I'd mention the visibly worse stabilization in viewfinder and color fringing below 100mm, as that's something that can be seen in actual usage IMHO. I'm still not sure if the Tamron has some color cast or just different colors compared to the GM.
p.11 #16 · Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD
The stabilization of the lens is ONLY activated when actually focusing (i.e. half pressing the shutter button)! If one just looks through the EVF without pressing anything, only the camera IBIS is working. I think not realizing this makes some people think that the stabilization is not good... I managed to do test shots at 400mm and 1/30s which is impressive enough in my book.
Aside from that: This lens is NOT "the same as the 28-200, just in the tele range", as some people seem to think. While the two copies of the 28-200 I had for a short time had significant weaknesses especially in regard to corner performance and color rendition, the 50-400 is a different beast. I am stunned how reliably sharp this thing is over the whole range.
As a landscape guy, now I have all my needs covered with just two lenses: my Sony 16-35 f4 PZ and this one.
p.11 #17 · Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD
I have one complaint about the function buttons on the lens.
For landscape, architecture and so on AF-S works best.
For moving subjects, of course AF-C. On travel and hikes I like to be able to switch fast between these modes.
How neat would it be to set the custom switch on the lens to "AF-S", "AF-C" and "MF"!
But that is simply not possible. WTF.
...
)...