The "New Gear/Willy Waving" thread

mrk · 18 Jun 2015 at 00:24

crinkleshoes said:
Looks nice... I still haven't got my 16-35L II yet

That looks tempting, the rendition looks nice... only I really like the way the finishing on the L glasses render colours. But then the IS could be useful on the Tamron.

Contrast and colour do seem to be rendered really accurately yup. Been playing around at night with shots around 1/5s and even 0.3s, I'm sure even slower hand held is possible. Who says IS is of no use on such a wide lens

Raymond Lin · 18 Jun 2015 at 00:38

Tempted to change my Canon 16-35 to the Tamron. Wider and sharper with IS.

mrk · 18 Jun 2015 at 00:42

It's so big and so heavy I actually have to keep the body and lens attached in a side bag until I can find a suitable backpack replacement that will house it lol. It's bigger than the 85mm 1.4.

Raymond Lin · 18 Jun 2015 at 00:47

It looks to be the same length as the 16-35 with the hood on, except that doesn't have the same front element and can be used without a hood. Which is what I do, to save space.

It is a LOT wider though.

I would say it looks about the same size as the 24-70 Mk1.

jonneymendoza · 18 Jun 2015 at 02:39

I might replace my 16 35 with the new 11 24 l lens. Thoughts?

crinkleshoes · 18 Jun 2015 at 02:42

jonneymendoza said:
I might replace my 16 35 with the new 11 24 l lens. Thoughts?

Thoughts = you have money to burn... $4000 for such a lens is insanity, in my opinion

SDK^ · 18 Jun 2015 at 08:13

mrk said:
It's so big and so heavy I actually have to keep the body

It's the same size as the Canon 16-35 - looks like you're making it longer by attaching the cover to the end of the lens hood there

It's the weight that stands out on this lens - 1.1kg !!

SDK^ · 18 Jun 2015 at 08:16

jonneymendoza said:
I might replace my 16 35 with the new 11 24 l lens. Thoughts?

What will you use the 11-24 for? Remember it weighs 1.2kg and most of that weight is at the end lens element.
If you aren't shooting professionally the Sigma 11-24 (Full Frame) is decent enough. check it out : http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-12-24mm-f-4.5-5.6-DG-II-HSM-Lens.aspx

jonneymendoza · 18 Jun 2015 at 14:02

SDK^ said:
What will you use the 11-24 for? Remember it weighs 1.2kg and most of that weight is at the end lens element.
If you aren't shooting professionally the Sigma 11-24 (Full Frame) is decent enough. check it out : http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-12-24mm-f-4.5-5.6-DG-II-HSM-Lens.aspx

For landscape and architecture

mrk · 18 Jun 2015 at 14:08

SDK^ said:
It's the same size as the Canon 16-35 - looks like you're making it longer by attaching the cover to the end of the lens hood there
It's the weight that stands out on this lens - 1.1kg !!

The lens cap only adds a few mm to the length at most!

I've emailed digitalrev about the crack in my lens cap, they said I may have to send the lens back for a swap as the cap is part of the bundled package and they can't get the cap on its own which I find laughable. Surely Tamron have spare parts like lens caps?

I've emailed Tamron UK to enquire about buying just the cap as I don't fancy sending the lens away just for the sake of a lens cap.

SDK^ · 18 Jun 2015 at 15:17

mrk said:
The lens cap only adds a few mm to the length at most!.

I didn't mention the lens cap
My point was you've exaggerated the lens length in your photo by attaching the lens end cover to the very end of the lens hood.

In reality the lens length is from the camera up to the green line.

mrk · 18 Jun 2015 at 15:19

No I haven't and no it isn't.

The lens length is up to the tip of the front element, which is just shy of the tip of the integrated petal hood:

The front element is massively domed like on a fisheye lens.

gary996 · 18 Jun 2015 at 17:01

Get some bokeh shots up mrk. Would like to see what they look like

SDK^ · 18 Jun 2015 at 19:47

gary996 said:
Get some bokeh shots up mrk. Would like to see what they look like

Wide angle at F2.8 doesn't produce great out of focus areas. 30mm might be semi okay.
At 15mm F2.8 with a subject distance of just 1 meter sharpess (depth of field) is 90cm i.e. Quite long

mrk · 18 Jun 2015 at 21:07

gary996 said:
Get some bokeh shots up mrk. Would like to see what they look like

It's not bad at all really providing you're close enough. It's not going to provide sweet bokeh like a prime for sure, but it's certainly pleasant enough at both focal length ends.

Examples

30mm:

15mm:

If you're a few feet away from the subject though, then the background is less bokehlicious. Although street lights and city lights do come out nice regardless!

Skalaberg · 19 Jun 2015 at 17:23

I felt there was a bit of a hole in my lens range. Currently have a Nikon 35mm 1.8, Tamron 70-300 and a tamron 17-50 f2.8 so for a poultry 250 notes I thought I'd try out one of these. Reviews seemed good for the money.

IMG_0048 by Skalaberg, on Flickr

IMG_0049 by Skalaberg, on Flickr

please excuse the phone pics.

I'm quite looking forward to trying this one out. I did briefly soil my pants when i first put it on the body as I got the dreaded FEE error message and thought it was broken. A quick google told me that all I had to do was turn the aparature ring round to F32 and lock it. Phew all is well now.

Skalaberg · 19 Jun 2015 at 17:45

1. Wow, didn't even know that depth of field was possible on a DX camera

_DSC5367 by Skalaberg, on Flickr

2. My phone needs cleaning.. blurghhh

_DSC5382 by Skalaberg, on Flickr

3. I am completely clueless.. any tips on how to get the best out of this lens?

SDK^ · 19 Jun 2015 at 18:01

You'll need to stop the lens aperture down to at least F8 when at minimum focus distance (1:1 macro) otherwise your in focus area will be millimetres, as your example shows.

Skalaberg · 19 Jun 2015 at 18:06

Yes the phone pic was at 6.3. i'll try them all out over the weekend. I can already see the aperture setting on this lens is much more important than I'm used to. I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy this lens!!

Phal · 19 Jun 2015 at 19:08

Tbh this is the constant issue you deal with when trying to do macro.

The closer you get, the more magnification you get which is what you want... The trouble is you get less and less DOF so it's always a balancing act.

If you're keeping your ISOs lowish then you probably won't be getting past F8/F9 too much in natural light. A good flash setup will let you get to narrower apertures for more DOF but obviously you don't want to get too narrow and lose sharpness. Even at F16 you're only getting just over 3mm from 30cm away (which is minimum focus distance on my Canon 100mm anyway).