Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 18 posts | 
by ricardo00 on Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:35 pm
ricardo00
Forum Contributor
Posts: 264
Joined: 6 Apr 2014
Looking for a not too heavy zoom for hiking and wildlife photography.  Trying to balance
weight, zoom, sharpness and low light capability.  I realize that a Nikon compatible Tamron 150-600 is
not yet available, but for purposes of discussion, I will assume that it is comparable to the Canon
version.  Any thoughts?
 

by E.J. Peiker on Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:36 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86760
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
The Tamron 150-600 is the same optically for both but will perform more poorly relative to what the sensor is capable of on all Nikon DSLRs compared to Canon. even Nikon's lowest end camera, the D3300, has a higher resolution, smaller pixel site, and AA filter less sensor so it will expose much more of the flaws in the lens than any Canon camera will and the lens is extremely flawed for longer focal lengths. Even at 300mm it starts to show weakness on higher resolution sensors and at bigger print sizes. The Nikon 80-400G lens is vastly superior optically but also a quite different focal length range.
 

by ricardo00 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:44 pm
ricardo00
Forum Contributor
Posts: 264
Joined: 6 Apr 2014
Thanks EJ for your rapid response!  I am not sure that I completely understand your comments.  I currently
use a Nikon D7000 (possibly to be replaced by the D9300 if and when it is released).  Many of the users
of the Tamron lens seem to have the Canon EOS 7D, would the resolution or pixel size be that different for these Canon
users?
For wildlife that is quite a distance away and not approachable, would one be better off using the Nikon
80-400G lens and cropping or using the Tamron at 600mm?  Thanks for any input.
 

by dougc on Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:53 pm
User avatar
dougc
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1567
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Texas
When these two lenses are compared, the Nikon will kick the stuffing out of the Tamron.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:21 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86760
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
ricardo00 wrote:Thanks EJ for your rapid response!  I am not sure that I completely understand your comments.  I currently
use a Nikon D7000 (possibly to be replaced by the D9300 if and when it is released).  Many of the users
of the Tamron lens seem to have the Canon EOS 7D, would the resolution or pixel size be that different for these Canon
users?
For wildlife that is quite a distance away and not approachable, would one be better off using the Nikon
80-400G lens and cropping or using the Tamron at 600mm?  Thanks for any input.
The Canon's pixel sites are bigger resulting in 18 megapixels and it has a strong AA filter so it won't show the flaws as much as a similarly sized 24 megapixel sensor with smaller pixel sites and no AA filter.  the Nikon is a significantly higher resolution camera than the Canon so it will show the flaws more.  Of course if you downrez every shot it won't matter but if you use every pixel then it matters a lot.

Popular Photography just did a test on this lens it gave it a D (A being best, F being unusable) at 300mm for large print sizes on a camera independent test. They were unable to test beyond that but the lens isn't getting any sharper as you go longer.
 

by Andrew_5488 on Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:59 am
Andrew_5488
Forum Contributor
Posts: 390
Joined: 15 Feb 2012
Location: NY
E.J. Peiker wrote:  The Nikon 80-400G lens is vastly superior optically but also a quite different focal length range.
Lensrentals article at:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout

contradicts that,no?

"...However, the new Nikon 80-400 AF-S zoom is, as near as we can tell, equivalent to the Canon 100-400 IS as far as resolution goes, so you should be able to extrapolate pretty easily..."


Also,some interesting tests are here:
http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/%26newwindow%3D1
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:04 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86760
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
It's a bunch of crap, the new Nikon 80-400 is sharper than the best tuned Canon 100-400. Ive litterally tested dozens of them. Remember he is on an Imatest which can't test the lens at long focal lengths in his setup.
 

by Andrew_5488 on Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:16 pm
Andrew_5488
Forum Contributor
Posts: 390
Joined: 15 Feb 2012
Location: NY
E.J. Peiker wrote:It's a bunch of crap, the new Nikon 80-400 is sharper than the best tuned Canon 100-400.  Ive litterally tested dozens of them.  Remember he is on an Imatest which can't test the lens at long focal lengths in his setup.
But he did:


"...Recently, the good people at Imatest have developed an ultra-high resolution, backlit chart printed on photographic film that is perfect for testing long telephoto lenses in the lab. The combination of a new, cool Imatest setup and a new, cool lens proved irresistible, so we decided to compare the new Tamron with the olderTamron 200-500mmSigma 50-500mm OS, and Canon 100-400mm IS lenses..."
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:03 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86760
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
OK, but he didn't test the Nikon so it is still a pointless statement ;) Roger is usually much better than that.
 

by bjs on Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:46 pm
bjs
Forum Contributor
Posts: 362
Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
E.J. Peiker wrote:The Tamron 150-600 is the same optically for both but will perform more poorly relative to what the sensor is capable of on all Nikon DSLRs compared to Canon.  even Nikon's lowest end camera, the D3300, has a higher resolution, smaller pixel site, and AA filter less sensor so it will expose much more of the flaws in the lens than any Canon camera will and the lens is extremely flawed for longer focal lengths.
DXO hasn't tested this lens on both mounts but they have tested the Tamron SP24-70 on both mounts for a similar situation.   The Canon T5i sharpness beats the D3300 (11MP versus 10MP).   There was actually a bigger difference within the same Canon lineup just going to the 7D (9MP).   

I doubt the same test on the Tamron 150-600 would be that much different...if anything they will likely be more similar assuming the 150-600 is a lesser quality lens and more of a limiting factor.
 

by Steve Cirone on Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:54 pm
User avatar
Steve Cirone
Lifetime Member
Posts: 2262
Joined: 29 May 2005
Location: El Cajon, California
Member #:00583
Since the OP is thinking about the new Tamron, a lens costing less than half what the new Nikon 80-400 costs, I am thinking he is a normal budget minded individual.  What he seems to be looking for is bang for the buck.  Isn't everyone!

Here is a good bang for the buck combo I'd like to propose for Nikonians.  And I'd like input from the regulars on this:  Pair the new Nikon D 7100 camera ($1147 US) with the ($1370 US) Nikon 300mm f4 lens.  The D 7100 is 24 megs, has great AF, and a nice lcd.  The biggie is it is a 1.5 crop and you can flip a switch and make it 2x crop.  So it is either a 450mm or a 600mm.  $2517 for a super rig complete.  Both are available as used/ refurb, and you can save even more.  I have used the rig and it is super for fast ducks in flight, and rookies have had fabulous results with the rig on BIF.  The Nikon 300mm f4 is super sharp and ultra fast auto focus.  Plus it is really flyweight.
 
DAILY IMAGE GALLERY:  https://www.facebook.com/steve.cirone.1

 IMAGE GALLERY ARCHIVES WITH EXIF: https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevecirone/
 

by DOglesby on Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:16 pm
User avatar
DOglesby
Lifetime Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 19 May 2008
Location: North Carolina
Member #:01155
Steve Cirone wrote:Since the OP is thinking about the new Tamron, a lens costing less than half what the new Nikon 80-400 costs, I am thinking he is a normal budget minded individual.  What he seems to be looking for is bang for the buck.  Isn't everyone!

Here is a good bang for the buck combo I'd like to propose for Nikonians.  And I'd like input from the regulars on this:  Pair the new Nikon D 7100 camera ($1147 US) with the ($1370 US) Nikon 300mm f4 lens.  The D 7100 is 24 megs, has great AF, and a nice lcd.  The biggie is it is a 1.5 crop and you can flip a switch and make it 2x crop.  So it is either a 450mm or a 600mm.  $2517 for a super rig complete.  Both are available as used/ refurb, and you can save even more.  I have used the rig and it is super for fast ducks in flight, and rookies have had fabulous results with the rig on BIF.  The Nikon 300mm f4 is super sharp and ultra fast auto focus.  Plus it is really flyweight.
I thought the D7100 has a pretty weak buffer. Isn't it like 7 raw files?  That wouldn't be adequate for BIF for me.
Cheers,
Doug
 

by Steve Cirone on Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:55 pm
User avatar
Steve Cirone
Lifetime Member
Posts: 2262
Joined: 29 May 2005
Location: El Cajon, California
Member #:00583
Stepping up to a big buffer camera can get expensive. My focus was to keep to keep my recommendation to a minimum amount of money. I shoot a 10 frames per second Mark 4 Canon but only normally do 2-3 frames per blip on BIF.

A new Nikon D4S body with the big buffer would be great, but too pricy for most folks. I got to shoot one with the 500mm f4 recently on BIF, and it blew my Mark 4 into the weeds. The focusing accuracy and strength was astonishing, even in overcast light with BIF flying straight at us.
 
DAILY IMAGE GALLERY:  https://www.facebook.com/steve.cirone.1

 IMAGE GALLERY ARCHIVES WITH EXIF: https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevecirone/
 

by DOglesby on Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:31 pm
User avatar
DOglesby
Lifetime Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 19 May 2008
Location: North Carolina
Member #:01155
I love the idea of the D7100 and am tempted to try it.  I really don't shoot much BIF anymore so for bird portraits the rig you suggested would likely be a sweet setup (I already have the 80-400 so going out to a field of view of 800mm is really enticing!).  

The 2x mode you are referring to is actually a 1.3 on top of the 1.5 right (so that's actually 1.95x...close enough!).  Is that like 15mp?
Cheers,
Doug
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:41 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86760
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
DOglesby wrote: The 2x mode you are referring to is actually a 1.3 on top of the 1.5 right (so that's actually 1.95x...close enough!).  Is that like 15mp?
Yes, that is correct.  And what't great about that is that the AF points cover essentially the entire frame.
 

by DOglesby on Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:17 pm
User avatar
DOglesby
Lifetime Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 19 May 2008
Location: North Carolina
Member #:01155
Wonder why Nikon doesn't offer a buffer upgrade for a fee (on the D7100). I would bet they'd increase sales of the camera even if it was a $500 service.
Cheers,
Doug
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:26 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86760
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
DOglesby wrote:Wonder why Nikon doesn't offer a buffer upgrade for a fee (on the D7100).  I would bet they'd increase sales of the camera even if it was a $500 service.
It would definitely make that the best DSLR for reach on the market.  But a camera like that is probably  ade on an integrated board with flip-chip memory meaning youw ould have to replace the entire logic board.  Not something that would be very cheap for the relatively few that would actually do the upgrade.  I'm guessing it would be well north of $500.  But if it were available I'd get a D7100 right away.  There is rumor of a D9300...
 

by ricardo00 on Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:14 am
ricardo00
Forum Contributor
Posts: 264
Joined: 6 Apr 2014
Thanks everyone for your ideas!  I had thought of the Nikon 300mm f4 lens as well but thought
that lacking any image stabilization it would be hard to hand hold?  Now if Nikon comes out with
the D9300 with an increased buffer and a new 300mm f4 with image stabilization that would be a combo . . .
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
18 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group