Any Photographers with DSLR's Around ?

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

SNIP
We have a whole range of nice lenses and we're buying three more in the coming months: the 70-300L, 100-400L and the MP-E65. The lenses we currently use most often are the 100L macro, 24-105L, 17-40L and 70-200L.
SNIP
Nick.

Love my mpe65. In case you did not know you can put an old style M42 TC on the front of the lens, not between the camera and the lens, and get what I will call a wide angle effect. Here is one of my examples and a link to a more detailed explanation


Flickr: Discussing Low mag shots with an MPE-65 in Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo

This really expands the usability of the mpe65.

[storyinframes]

Originally Posted by tomfl

Right about the effective FOV. It also turns the 2.8 f ratio close to f8, I am too lazy to do the arithmetic.

teleconverters may have 2-3 stop light loss. check on the barrel of the lens for the compensation or check on internet page for the particular make.

if its a 2 stop loss then, the maths will be like this - your lens min opening is say F2.8, add to it 2 stop compensation i.e F4 and F5.6. so you start with min opening of 5.6 thats quite a loss. :-)

remember the table

1.4-2.0-2.8-4.0-5.6-8-11-16-22

your subject should be as bright as F5.6 to photograph normally. if your subject is lit at F2.8 then your image will be 2 stops underexposed!!

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by storyinframes

teleconverters may have 2-3 stop light loss. check on the barrel of the lens for the compensation or check on internet page for the particular make.

if its a 2 stop loss then, the maths will be like this - your lens min opening is say F2.8, add to it 2 stop compensation i.e F4 and F5.6. so you start with min opening of 5.6 thats quite a loss. :-)

remember the table

1.4-2.0-2.8-4.0-5.6-8-11-16-22

your subject should be as bright as F5.6 to photograph normally. if your subject is lit at F2.8 then your image will be 2 stops underexposed!!

Correct. The 1.4x TC's add 1 stop and the 2x TC's add 2 stops, so our 70-200 f/2.8L with 2x TC becomes 140-400 f/5.6L. This is much like the prime lens 400 f/5.6L which costs $1,000 more than the teleconverter.

I just ordered the 70-300L plus a 67mm circular polarizer from Adorama. Hope to receive it somewhere next week.

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Correct. The 1.4x TC's add 1 stop and the 2x TC's add 2 stops, so our 70-200 f/2.8L with 2x TC becomes 140-400 f/5.6L. This is much like the prime lens 400 f/5.6L which costs $1,000 more than the teleconverter.

I just ordered the 70-300L plus a 67mm circular polarizer from Adorama. Hope to receive it somewhere next week.

My wife was looking for a2x.TC and was warned that for the mid range Nikon zoom lens she has, there wouldn't be enough light for auto focus to work.

Does that make sense?

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

My wife was looking for a2x.TC and was warned that for the mid range Nikon zoom lens she has, there wouldn't be enough light for auto focus to work.

Does that make sense?

Yes that makes sense. Basically, current technology allows a f/2.8 or faster lens to work well with AF and attached 2.0 TC. This becomes a f/5.6 lens. I don't think you will find any lenses slower than f/5.6 offered by the top manufacturers.

But you can still use manual focus and longer exposures.

ciao!
Nick.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

My wife was looking for a2x.TC and was warned that for the mid range Nikon zoom lens she has, there wouldn't be enough light for auto focus to work.

Does that make sense?

My friend Romy is one of the true masters of TCs. Here is a link to his pbase page where he does tests.

12,800 mm Sigmonster Photo Gallery by romy ocon at pbase.com

Check out some of his other pages for some of the best pix around

romy ocon's Photo Galleries at pbase.com

Bottom line is some lens work better with a TC than others, but even with the best TCs on the best lens there is a price to pay IQ wise. Some folks are old school and never use a TC. Others insist on a Canon or Nikon TC, while some folks think Sigma or Kenko TCs are as good at the OMs.

That is why Romy's pages are so good, they show just how much IQ is degraded by adding a TC. By looking at his other pix it is clear he has a good grasp of how much AF and AE suffer when you put a TC on a camera.

As a general rule you should buy a lens of the focal length you want to use for the best IQ, AF, AE, but you can get more focal length at a cheaper cost with a TC.

[GaryMayo]

I have so much Nikon equipment my eyes have started to squint and I watch old Godzilla reruns on Netflix. Lol

I collected glass like some people collect stamps. Last fall, I said enough is enough, I would rather get simple in my old age, and get a sailboat.

Do I miss my D3, and all my glass? Not at all. Still have lots to part with, and my income on eBay is helping out with my new boat interests.

My SigMonster is one lens I sold (reference post above ).

Personally, while I liked the SigMonster, big Nikkor glass would get better images. Where the SigMonster excelled was the ability to acquire your target easily at 300mm then zoom to fill your frame. Great feature. However, for pixel peepers, no getting around original factory glass for stunning images.

As an example, I still have a 120-300 DG sigma lens, and a 300mm AF-I Nikkor. Both are f/2.8 lenses. Both are big glass. One is pretty new (sigma) and the other is getting pretty old. The Nikkor will eat the lunch of the Sigma except that the Sigma will allow you to acquire your image at 120mm and zoom in to frame, up to 300mm.

In the end, it is all what one chooses to shoot with. I am delighted I changed from shooting to sailing.

What body do I shoot with now? D5100. Very nice reasonably priced entry level camera that takes photos on par with a D3 unless you are after speed, or shooting where you need full frame.

Mirrorless is about to steal the thunder away from DSLRs and they will have gone the way of stick matches, and VCRs in the coming months, if not weeks. Glass on the other hand, is forever if well cared for. Doubt Nikon will change the mounts on a heritage of 60 million camera lenses.

[tomfl]

Gary,

I have a Sigmonster and most recently used it to observe and capture images of the 20 May, 2012 solar eclipse. It is one of the older models, probably seven years old and I love the zoom feature. How ever I do agree that both the Canon and Nikon primes on their respective bodies may please pixel peepers more.

I love my 120-300 for shooting things like little league baseball games, again the zoom is the critical feature. Sigma has a history of producing lens that have filled holes in the Canon/Nikon lens offerings and the 300-800, 120-300, and the 70 macro are good examples of very high quality lens that no other lens maker offers.

I have Canon, Nikon, and Sigma DSLR bodies, as well as several digicams. I have also seen several threads on dedicated camera sites where the point was made that if someone captured ten images using a Canon and ten images using a Nikon and printed them out 11X14 and put them on a table would you bet the farm you could correctly identify which image came from which camera.

I will add the caveat that it would not be fair to use the Canon mpe65 or any of the Canon TS series lens for this test since those lens produce very unique images and Nikon really has no such equivalent lens.

While it will be interesting to see how long it takes for mirrorless bodies develop I am not convinced they are within weeks, or even months, of matching top tier DSLRs for IQ. One place I do think a mirrorless body would have a real advantage is in underwater photography, the smaller size means smaller and lighter housings. The only down side I see is the bigger domes required for bigger cameras make over/under splits easier. The 9inch Zen dome on my Nauticam housing makes it seem almost unfair since it is so easy to do splits.

[settingsun]

Photography is our main hobby as we cruise by land and sea.

When we started 5 years ago we had his-and-hers Nikon D40's each with an 18-55 lens and one 55-200 between us. I upgraded to a Nikon D5100 last year with 18-55 and 55-300 which I love. Sweet hubby is getting his new Nikon D5100 with 18-55 and 55-200 next week. Our best days are spent shooting whatever we bump into and then enjoying the pics on the computer and posting them to our website with accompanying stories. Fun fun fun!!

[GaryMayo]

Originally Posted by tomfl

Gary,

I have a Sigmonster and most recently used it to observe and capture images of the 20 May, 2012 solar eclipse. It is one of the older models, probably seven years old and I love the zoom feature. How ever I do agree that both the Canon and Nikon primes on their respective bodies may please pixel peepers more.

I love my 120-300 for shooting things like little league baseball games, again the zoom is the critical feature. Sigma has a history of producing lens that have filled holes in the Canon/Nikon lens offerings and the 300-800, 120-300, and the 70 macro are good examples of very high quality lens that no other lens maker offers.

I have Canon, Nikon, and Sigma DSLR bodies, as well as several digicams. I have also seen several threads on dedicated camera sites where the point was made that if someone captured ten images using a Canon and ten images using a Nikon and printed them out 11X14 and put them on a table would you bet the farm you could correctly identify which image came from which camera.

I will add the caveat that it would not be fair to use the Canon mpe65 or any of the Canon TS series lens for this test since those lens produce very unique images and Nikon really has no such equivalent lens.

While it will be interesting to see how long it takes for mirrorless bodies develop I am not convinced they are within weeks, or even months, of matching top tier DSLRs for IQ. One place I do think a mirrorless body would have a real advantage is in underwater photography, the smaller size means smaller and lighter housings. The only down side I see is the bigger domes required for bigger cameras make over/under splits easier. The 9inch Zen dome on my Nauticam housing makes it seem almost unfair since it is so easy to do splits.

At an airshow, I used SigMonster, D3, Winberly gimbal II head and massive manfrotto tripod, and my wife used a 80-400VR on a D300 with a much simpler manfrotto portable set up, and she kicked my ass!

I gave four grand for my SigMonster and sold it for five. No regrets having one to use for three years, and sure no regrets selling it. The guy I sold it to, sent me some images he took with it, purchased it for eagles. His photography skills with that lens leave for much improvement, trying to be polite,

[s/v Jedi]

I'm back

Here is the Panama Queen, picture from Soberana State Park in Panama, using my new 70-300mm:


ciao!
Nick.

[deckofficer]

Welcome back Nick, did you have a good time aboard M/H Jedi?

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by deckofficer

Welcome back Nick, did you have a good time aboard M/H Jedi?

Yes we loved it but were very busy getting it all organized, buying everything we need to live in it. That is all done now so next summer it's ready to go

How was your summer?

Here's a spotted ant-bird right in the jungle hunting for bullet-ants!

[deckofficer]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Yes we loved it but were very busy getting it all organized, buying everything we need to live in it. That is all done now so next summer it's ready to go

How was your summer?

Here's a spotted ant-bird right in the jungle hunting for bullet-ants!

Didn't get out much, other than the trip to Chattanooga. I now have a efficient long water line narrow beam boat like Jedi, a kayak. It has electric propulsion and I've assembled LiFePO4 cells for range that beckons kayak camping, 80 nm range.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by GaryMayo

At an airshow, I used SigMonster, D3, Winberly gimbal II head and massive manfrotto tripod, and my wife used a 80-400VR on a D300 with a much simpler manfrotto portable set up, and she kicked my ass!

I gave four grand for my SigMonster and sold it for five. No regrets having one to use for three years, and sure no regrets selling it. The guy I sold it to, sent me some images he took with it, purchased it for eagles. His photography skills with that lens leave for much improvement, trying to be polite,

Horses for courses.

I am often able to get better pix of BIF using a Canon 100-400 (kinda similar to the Nikon 80-400) than with the Sigmonster. I sorta put the Canon 500/f4 in between the two. For larger slower moving birds that are not flying directly overhead the 500 can produce great IQ, but the lighter 100-400 is much easier to get the subject in the FOV with. On the other hand for birds flying in the distance the Sigmonster's 800mm FL is a clear winner.

My friend Romy is a true master of the Sigmonster; in fact he is a true monster of photography period. A quick scan of his pbase site will confirm that.

romy ocon's Photo Galleries at pbase.com

He has more lens than anyone I know. He also has the ability to select just which lens is the right one for the situation. The Sigmonster is definitely a special purpose lens. It also requires very good long lens technique to produce good IQ. For many folks there is a real learning curve when they first get big glass.

All that being said I will not be parting with my Sigmonster.