Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 23-11-2009, 10:35 PM
AlexN's Avatar
AlexN
Tunnel Vision

AlexN is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 6,708
Agreed Ben, I have shot hand held with my 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 DO all day for either wildlife or sports, the 400/2.8 DO is sensationally balanced, especially with the 1D mk3 on the rear end of it... the 300 seems heavier, even though they are similar size and weight...

I personally don't need to depreciate these toys (as they are for me, being that I dont earn money from photography in any way shape or form..) for me, These toys bring happiness, as they allow me to capture the the photos I want to capture in my hobby... I love photographing birds in flight, I love photographing animals that generally don't appreciate someone in their personal space, so my long lenses to me, were worth every cent they cost me... And to Ian Robinson, Untill you've tried to capture a raptor diving into a lake to catch a fish at 150m ~ 200m range with your manual focus 300/2.8 Tamron, don't compare it to the 300/2.8L... This thing is pure lightning... As bert said, at wide open F/2.8 you can reliably focus on a spider web at sompe pretty extreme distances, you can easily focus, and maintain focus through a burst of shots on a car coming towards you at 200+ kmph.. Whilst for some uses, the 300/2.8 tamron may produce good images, it will not compare to the Canon L glass in every respect.. For some time I had the Tokina AT-X Pro 300mm F/2.8 and thought it was the bees knees... I had the opportunity to use a friends Canon L version of the same for a day out at queensland raceway and that very same day I started saving for my own...

Even the Nikkor 300/2.8 doesn't touch the Canon..

We're all happy for you that you got something that does what you want for much less than the canon version. Until you demand from your lens what I demand from mine every time it gets used, you won't need to know the differences between your tamron and my canon 300/2.8.

In my hobbies, price is generally not a factor I consider. High price just means a longer wait before I get it... Astronomy being the only difference, I will never pay $20k+ for an RCOS telescope unless I win a massive amount of money... A $10,000 refractor and a 10~15k mount are not out of the question though... Why? when I could get very similar results from a 3.5k refractor and a 5k mount? Because I can. Because I want to... I don't feel the need to justify every purchase I make, count every cent that goes into my hobbies or think to myself, "where can I skimp on something and get similar results" I pick what I want, add up the total cost, then work my butt off to afford it...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 23-11-2009, 10:37 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Alex,

You're wasting your breath. The ill-informed (never used the equipment in question) "too expensive" posts will not stop.

Regards,
Humayun
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 24-11-2009, 10:00 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
That's a bit mean H.

For sure, the Canon L super telephotos are VERY good, very good, none better imho, but in reality, would you really notice lots of differences at say A4 print levels? Pixel peeping probably, agreed, but how many people really do that? And is that an acceptable way to view an image I guess?

The Tamron 300mm f2.8 is pretty good, as is the Sigma equivalent. Optically, 95% as good as the Canon unit, AF wise, poorer I agree.

I'd personally rather go for the 500mm f4 - lighter and easier to handle, and suits my shooting wants better (birding/motorsport). You don't find a lot of birders using a 400mm f2.8 imho, most are using 500 f4, 600 f4 or 800 f5.6!

Dave

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
Everything is about money for you, isn't it?

I've never seen someone complain so bitterly about things they can't afford but would like to own.

In essence, what you're saying is that anyone who has INVESTED in quality glass is a fool because they could have bought a cheaper version of the lens by a different manufacturer, regardless of the quality differences.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 24-11-2009, 10:12 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Dave,

OK, take my final (and, maybe first) sentence away and the rest still stands.

My other comment was moderated (removed) which also expanded on my first sentence.

Cheers.

Regards,
Humayun
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 24-11-2009, 11:32 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
I missed the removed comments, but it's not really an issue. I understand what you're saying - the Canon super telephoto glass is the best. And I know it is. Nikon's more expensive by a good portion, and a LOT harder to get, and not as good optically, or AF wise. The OEM manufacturers, Tokina, Tamron & Sigma offer pretty good glass. Sure, it's not in the same league as the Canon gear, but it's pretty good.

I severely doubt that most people could accurately tell which image was taken with which lens in a blind test. I know that there's a difference between final output, and actual usage in the field, and this is where the Canon lenses beat the hell out of their competition. Ultra fast AF. Super accurate (when not using a 1D mark III that is lol). The OEMs might get 50% of shots as keepers, the Canon gets 90%, and yes, that is a MAJOR advantage when shooting sports or wildlife on the move. That doesn't mean that you can't capture wonderful images with the OEMs, it's just harder, and less likely to happen imho.

I must catch up with Alex one day to pry those nice long white lenses from his fingers muhahaha! And if I'm down Sydney way, I think your 5D mark II could be seriously investigated too

Dave

PS It's looking more like I'll be getting a Mark IV in the next year. I'll keep my mark IIn as a back up.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 25-11-2009, 04:13 PM
Paul Haese's Avatar
Paul Haese
Registered User

Paul Haese is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 9,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexN View Post
Even the Nikkor 300/2.8 doesn't touch the Canon..
Hmmm not sure about this statement. It all depends which master is using the lens. I have seen some absolutely awesome images from the Nikkor.

Canon don't make the best glass on all the high end lenses. I have used the 400 from both Nikon and Canon and I rate them evenly. Yes both are better than Sigma or Tameron but not one can be rated higher than the other.

Incidently put a 2x on the Canon and put it up against the 800 f5.6. I know which one will do better. Virgs has the 2x with his 400 (latest version) and it is fast and great for birding still.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 25-11-2009, 06:41 PM
AlexN's Avatar
AlexN
Tunnel Vision

AlexN is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 6,708
Paul - The 300 2.8 Nikkor is nice, Im not saying it isnt.. I've used both side by side for birding and motorsport, I found the canon much more reliable for focus accuracy, and a hairs width faster to focus.. There isnt much in it...

The only, and I mean ONLY reason I don't use a Nikon camera much these days is the glass... the 70-200 F/2.8 VR IF ED is better than the canon 70-200 2.8L IS, faster to focus, better colour reproduction lighter, (although somewhat lengthier) the wider Nikkors and wider Canon's I have little to no experience with.. I do the majority of my terrestrial photography at over 200mm F/L... never below 85mm..

I've used the 300 and 400 2.8 canon's with the 1.4x TE, they both functioned as if the TE wasn't there.. obviously requiring lower shutter speeds, but accuracy and speed were relatively unchanged... IS took up the slack when my arms weren't stable enough to hold the lenses still!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 12:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement