kv0925: (Gromit Reading)
[personal profile] kv0925
Sorry, just had to share the joy of photographic gear lust, temporarily satiated.


20140227-IMG_6957

On the left is my shiny new Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 VC; on the right is the lens it's essentially replacing, my trusty old Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8. I got that lens back in 2006, and probably used it more than any other lens I've owned. It's been a fine lens, but it's never been as sharp as I'd like, and it's definitely consumer-grade in terms of the focusing and construction. But I never had any trouble with it until fairly recently, when it started throwing lens communication errors. It's out of warranty now, so I dunno if it's worth paying to get it fixed. I'll think about it, I guess--it's not a bad lens, I could sell it or hang on to it as a backup beater lens or to pass on to the girls if they get interested in photography.

Anyway, it was a gloomy day around here so I haven't taken the new lens out for a test drive--just a couple shots indoors to make sure it works. Initial impressions, though: it's big and heavy, that's for sure! It weighs in at 1.8 pounds, which is less than Canon's original 24-70mm f/2.8 but a bit heftier than the new Mark II. Very solid construction, with weather sealing. In reviews, the Canon Mark II seems to edge the Tamron just slightly for overall sharpness wide-open, though they're pretty much indistinguishable once you stop down a bit. But the Tamron also adds stabilization, which a lot of people were disappointed Canon didn't add to the Mark II--instead they released a 24-70mm f/4 IS lens, but not many pros are willing to go for an f/4 zoom lens. The Tamron also happens to be a cool grand cheaper than the Canon Mark II, so for me it was kind of a no-brainer.

20140227-IMG_6958

A look at the business end--my old Tamron 28-75mm is a 67mm filter mount, the new 24-70mm is a whopping 82mm. That's a lot of glass!

Looking forward to putting it through its paces this weekend!

Date: 2014-02-28 12:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] girlspell.livejournal.com
You probably have a ton or more of other equipment. Tripod, zoom lens, etc.

I dislike the basic easy point and shoot cameras. It's hard for me to take pictures out in the sunlight. Terrible. I wish they came with just a little view finder. Nothing else.

Date: 2014-02-28 01:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cp.livejournal.com
Yeah, when you're serious about it the gear does tend to accumulate, that's for sure. :) In photographic circles you'll often see the claim that it's the photographer, not the gear, and to an extent I agree: all else being equal, a good photographer will make better photos with the gear at hand than a poor photographer, and I'd even go so far as to say that a good photographer with mediocre gear will generally make better images than a poor photographer with high-end equipment. But still and all, there are reasons why such a variety of gear exists, and some is clearly better than others. In this case, I expect the new lens will be able to achieve sharpness that the old one just couldn't, and the stabilization will help in a lot of situations as well. Plus it's fun to get new stuff. :)

I know what you mean about trying to use an LCD screen to take photos in bright sunlight! Having a traditional viewfinder is definitely a benefit of SLRs and their digital cousins, though LCDs can make other situations easier, like taking shots from high and low angles where you can't easily get your eye to the viewfinder.

Date: 2014-02-28 03:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] girlspell.livejournal.com
In your opinion, what brands make better cameras (and lens)? Nikon, Canon, Olympus, etc?

Date: 2014-02-28 04:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cp.livejournal.com
For professionals shooting small-format dSLR cameras, there are pretty much only two choices, Canon and Nikon. They both offer the widest selection of bodies and lenses and accessories, and they both have the most third-party support for lenses and whatnot. I went with Canon when I got started and have been happy, but I'm sure Nikon would have treated me well too. :) Olympus, Pentax and Sony are still out there making good stuff, but the pro who uses any of those brands (aside from backup or travel gear) is pretty rare. But for a hobbyist, any of those brands are quite good and will produce fine results.

The point-and-shoot world is pretty similar, you wouldn't go wrong with any of those brands, and the brand you choose doesn't matter so much since the accessories are fewer. I still generally suggest people stick with Canon or Nikon, but really whatever model provides the feature set you want at a price you can handle is going to be decent. I still like to do lots of research before I buy anything--Amazon reviews are usually a pretty good start for gauging overall quality, and dpreview.com is my go-to site for in-depth camera reviews.

Date: 2014-02-28 06:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] girlguitarist.livejournal.com
I'm looking forward to seeing how it is. I have the first Canon version and it was pretty terrible until I upgraded my camera, but still not the best quality. (Just such a good focal length!)

Date: 2014-02-28 01:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cp.livejournal.com
Yeah, I'd always heard the Mark I 24-70mm was sort of hit-and-miss. Some copies were reported to be stellar, but most were just okay. The Mark II is supposed to be a great improvement optically, and it weighs less too--but they jacked up the price without even adding IS, which makes it seem like a bad deal to me. So when Tamron announced their 24-70mm with VC, I was interested. Reading that it was almost as good as the Canon Mark II wide-open and pretty much identical once stopped down definitely made it look good. My 28-75mm finally starting to act up sealed the deal. :)

Date: 2014-02-28 06:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] girlguitarist.livejournal.com
Also, what do you think of Tamron? I've never owned one but have a few Sigmas and I'm always quite disappointed with them. They are slower to focus than Canon and VERY noisy when doing so!

Date: 2014-02-28 02:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cp.livejournal.com
I'm a Tamron fan for sure. The 28-75mm f/2.8 was one of the first lenses I got, and the first third-party lens I tried. And it lasted for 8 years without giving me any trouble at all, serving me well on every vacation and most every family outing in that time, plus portrait and wedding gigs. I sent it in for warranty service (Tamron has a 6-year warranty, which is pretty awesome) once after I got my 7D, just because it seemed like it wasn't as sharp as it used to be. But I think that was in my head and I was just seeing its limitations more clearly with the 7D's higher pixel count. Still, they cleaned and calibrated it and sent it back looking like new, and all in pretty short order, so I was impressed. It still works, it's just been kicking those lens communication errors now and then when I press the shutter. Re-mounting the lens fixes it for a bit, but I still wouldn't want that happening in the middle of a family shoot, let alone a wedding!

I also accumulated a pretty good amount of older Tamron glass over the years, manual-focus lenses from their 1980s Adaptall-2 (http://www.adaptall-2.com/) line that adapted well to use with modern dSLRs. They worked magic back then, even before they had much help from computer-aided design; some of those Adaptall-2 lenses are legendary, like the 35-80mm f/2.8-3.8. I still swear by my Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro, even though I upgraded to Canon's 100mm f/2.8L. And their 35-210mm f/3.2-4.2 is a really versatile piece of kit, with really good image quality for a 6x zoom lens. I have their 500mm f/8 mirror lens, which is difficult to use in anything but bright sunlight but one of the best of its breed. Heck, I even slap on the 28mm f/2.5 as a walkaround lens now and then, since it's so small and light--it's basically the same size and Canon's 40mm f/2.8 pancake, and 28mm is a better focal length on a crop camera.

That said, I've heard Sigma has really been improving in the past few years. I have their 50mm f/1.4 and think it is stellar. I've heard its cousins, the 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 are also fantastic, and the 35mm even adds an interesting feature where you can connect the lens to a USB dock and calibrate it yourself, which sounds nifty. Their zooms might not be so good, I dunno--I didn't consider their 24-70mm because it seems to be not as sharp as the rest, and lacks stabilization as well. For the money, the Tamron seemed the best bet. :)

Date: 2014-02-28 06:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] girlguitarist.livejournal.com
Thank you! Next time I upgrade I will look into Tamron instead :)

Date: 2014-03-03 01:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cp.livejournal.com
I must admit I do love the 2 Canon L lenses I own, and I borrowed a 14mm f/2.8L from CPS once and liked it a lot too. So in some cases, I'd probably spend the extra money and go Canon. But in this case, even though Canon improved the optics of their 24-70mm, they didn't add IS and still jacked up the price by a grand. So I think the Tamron is a no-brainer. Especially after taking it out for a spin! Update post coming. :)

Date: 2014-02-28 06:56 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] scriptdelalune.livejournal.com
Haha, I can't blame you for being excited. When you get exactly what you want, it's awesome :)

Date: 2014-02-28 02:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cp.livejournal.com
Now to get some gigs to pay for the thing! :)

Date: 2014-02-28 02:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] goblue.livejournal.com
It's beautiful! I can't wait to see how it shoots!

Date: 2014-02-28 04:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cp.livejournal.com
Looks like nice weather this weekend, too! :) Need to figure out what we want to do...

Date: 2014-02-28 03:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] liquidmistletoe.livejournal.com
Image

Can't wait to see some of your shots with it! After I rented a Tamron last year, and got my first Tamron for Christmas I am joining you with being a Tamron fan. Even for a zoom, it's much crisper than my Sigma 70-300 ANY day. Actually, the Sigma is Chris's (though he doesn't shoot nearly as seriously as I do).... The auto-focus started sticking and making a clicking noise when I'd have to manually unstick it... he glared at me for being "hard" on it - which I guess is technically true if "hard on it" means "used it a LOT." I'm sorry, but that's what cheap stuff does :P But he gave me guff when I called it "cheap" because to Mr. Stingy-save-a-lot, $120 is a lot to spend on anything - but a lens? Nuh uh, that's cheap. Anyway, tangent aside, the Tamron is worlds better than the Sigma ever was, even if the zoom is shorter. Even with a shorter zoom, it's a much crisper shot and I can crop in closer anyway. YAY LENSES!

(Sorry for all the edits) I think it would be awesome if any of your girls got into photography! Didn't you post a picture recently of Hallie (I think?) using a camera? That would be awesome to get to share :) My dad isn't into it so much anymore, but he used to be really into photography and I think it's heartwarming to him that we share it. Plus, your girls would be so lucky to have modern gear to tinker with!
Edited Date: 2014-02-28 03:07 pm (UTC)

Date: 2014-02-28 04:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cp.livejournal.com
Looks like great weather this weekend, so I definitely plan to get out and see what it can do! :) It's going to take some getting used to--the zoom and focus rings are switched from my old one, and the zoom ring is a LOT more dampened, which is good for avoiding zoom creep but is a definite change. :)

Yeah, I tried to get Hermione interested a few years back and she didn't really stick with it. Hallie seems to want to pick it up now, so I should definitely encourage that! She really loves playing with the photos once she gets them back on her PC (Hermione copies them over and plays too)--I hooked them up with Picasa for now, maybe I should unleash them with Lightroom. ;)
(deleted comment)

Date: 2014-03-03 01:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cp.livejournal.com
Well, keep Newton's second law of motion in mind: F=ma, so the more massive the object, the more force it takes to move it. So really, a heavy SLR camera/lens combo is more stable when you press the shutter than a little point-and-shoot, assuming the force to press the shutter button is about the same. Plus it's just more bulk to hang onto! :)

As for stabilization, there are two methods. Some dSLR cameras have stabilization built into the camera body itself--it works by shifting the sensor itself to compensate for movement. Others (like Canon and Nikon) put it into certain lenses instead, where it's a gyro-stabilized optical element. Each method has pros and cons: the big pro of having it in the body is that it's stabilized no matter what lens you attach; the cons are that it doesn't work quite as well as lens-based systems, and that if it breaks suddenly none of your lenses are stabilized. The pros of having it in the lens are that it typically works better, you can see it working through the viewfinder, and if it breaks it's just for that one lens; the cons are that it's only in the lenses that have it, of course, and those lenses naturally tend to cost a bit more.

As I'll post about later, I was extremely impressed with the stabilizer in the new toy. I have fairly steady hands to start, but it still made some shots possible that I wouldn't have even considered without stabilization.
(deleted comment)

Date: 2014-03-03 03:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cp.livejournal.com
Yep, that's a fixed lens, so no replacement possible. The S3 is what was called a 'bridge' camera for a while--sort of the size and shape of a dSLR, with a nice long zoom range, and with a slightly larger sensor than smaller point-and-shoot cameras, but fixed-lens and electronic viewfinder like P&S cams. So it has a shape that's good for holding onto, but the overall weight and heft are still pretty light. Looks like it weighs 410g without the battery; my main dSLR is exactly twice that, 820g, and then I slap on another 825g of lens.. it's a lot of mass to move!

There are tricks you can use to help keep things steady, stabilizer or not. A tripod is one, of course, but I've never been too keen on hauling one around with me so I very rarely use mine. For handheld shots, try pulling your arms in so your upper arms are against your chest, that sort of uses your upper body and arms as a more stable platform. And try to consciously hold your breath as you click the shutter, that reduces some movement as well. Lastly, if there's something nearby to lean on, like a railing or a wall or a tree, lean on that to turn your arm or body into a more solid platform too, or just hold the camera up against it so it's the support. If that makes sense. :)
(deleted comment)

Date: 2014-03-03 06:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cp.livejournal.com
You might also consider a monopod. As the name implies, it's sort of like a tripod, but it's just one collapsible leg and the camera mounts on top. It's a lot lighter and easier to carry than a tripod, but it provides some additional stability. I have one that's really lightweight aluminum, which I'll attach to my camera bag sometimes if I think it might come in handy. It's a compromise, but it's worth a try. There are really expensive carbon-fiber ones, but for around $15 you can get a decent one to play around with.

I bet you could get reasonably good shots of the moon with the S3. The trick is to switch to manual mode. See, if you're in an automatic exposure mode, chances are the camera is looking at the whole scene to determine what exposure to use. If it sees a bright spot in the middle of a solid black background, it's probably going to split the difference and overexpose the moon, which will make it the solid white orb you describe. The thing to remember about the moon is that it's lit by the sun--so you'd use the same exposure settings you'd use on a sunny day, which is the so-called Sunny 16 Rule: ISO 100, f/16, shutter speed 1/100sec. Equivalent to that would be ISO 100, f/8 and 1/200sec, which would help with motion blur too (the moon actually moves pretty darn quick when you're zoomed in!).

Speaking of zooming in, the maximum zoom on the S3 is equivalent to a 432mm lens on a film 35mm camera. That sounds like a lot, and it is for terrestrial subjects, but it wouldn't fill the frame with the moon. To give you an idea, here's my best moon shot to date:

Image

That was taken with the longest lens I own, which is 500mm. I was also using a 2x teleconverter, which makes it like a 1000mm lens--and the crop factor on my camera is 1.6x, so it's actually like a 1600mm lens on a 35mm film camera. That's a lot! I'd really like to get more into astrophotography, but I'd really need a telescope that a camera can attach to, and I think that might be pricey indeed. :)
(deleted comment)

Date: 2014-03-05 03:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cp.livejournal.com
I definitely know what you mean about the accomplishment aspect! A big reason I'm big on photography are for those moments of getting a shot I'm proud of and the pride of having done so. That moon shot is at least 5 years old, I think--I need to try again with my present camera, and when the moon is more full. I like seeing the terminator, and maybe a part of the moon in shadow, you know?

I think yours is not bad at all--the exposure looks fine, though obviously it could be sharper. If you use a smaller aperture you might be able to get better sharpness. I'd go to f/8, which for an equivalent exposure would be a shutter speed of around 1/160 at the same ISO. When zoomed in, as I'm sure you noticed, the moon actually moves through the frame fairly quickly, so I wouldn't use a shutter speed slower than that to avoid motion blur. Maybe also try f/6.3 and 1/200. I would presume you're using a tripod, too--if you can, you should disable the IS while on a tripod, it can cause unintended vibrations and it's not needed anyway. Also, use the self-timer setting; pressing the shutter can vibrate the camera just enough to cause extra blurriness too, so using a 10-second delay allows those vibrations to dissipate before the shutter snaps.

Date: 2014-03-03 12:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] re-vised.livejournal.com
Jealous!

Date: 2014-03-03 01:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cp.livejournal.com
I'll post about it later, but oh yeah, it's niiiiice. :)

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Profile

kv0925: (Default)
kv0925

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 123456
789 10111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Page generated Jul. 25th, 2025 10:19 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios