In reply to Post #2444
That 60-600mm is a bit daft. I borrowed one a while back and while I can see the appeal of having the shorter end when shooting sports and stuff, I wasn't that impressed. I tested the Sigmas, Tamron and the Nikon 200-500mm.
TLDR version, the Tamron with the 1.4x is lighter so rated that highest. Real world sharpness is fine for all of them. I have to admit I really like the Nikon, I did a head to head with an old 500mm f4 and it did great but against the others I'd buy the Tamron on a value for money basis.
That 60-600mm is a bit daft. I borrowed one a while back and while I can see the appeal of having the shorter end when shooting sports and stuff, I wasn't that impressed. I tested the Sigmas, Tamron and the Nikon 200-500mm.
TLDR version, the Tamron with the 1.4x is lighter so rated that highest. Real world sharpness is fine for all of them. I have to admit I really like the Nikon, I did a head to head with an old 500mm f4 and it did great but against the others I'd buy the Tamron on a value for money basis.
In reply to Post #2444
F4.5 at 900mm, if you get some good shots at that it would be good to see.
I don't have any Tamron lenses but going back a few years there was a noticeable difference in lens quality between the two but I think now they are both on par with each other. My favourite Sigma lens is the 105mm macro but that's probably due to the lockdown and when that ends I will be out photographing birds and landscapes so the macro will be consigned to my bag again.
F4.5 at 900mm, if you get some good shots at that it would be good to see.
I don't have any Tamron lenses but going back a few years there was a noticeable difference in lens quality between the two but I think now they are both on par with each other. My favourite Sigma lens is the 105mm macro but that's probably due to the lockdown and when that ends I will be out photographing birds and landscapes so the macro will be consigned to my bag again.
In reply to Post #2446
Likewise, I didn't go off-brand until recently. The tsunamis, and what they did to production over there, meant that some firms are rumoured to have outsourced some production to Sigma and Tamron. Whether that is what has improved the quality of their own products I don't know but certainly the lenses those two are banging out now are great quality as well as great value.
Likewise, I didn't go off-brand until recently. The tsunamis, and what they did to production over there, meant that some firms are rumoured to have outsourced some production to Sigma and Tamron. Whether that is what has improved the quality of their own products I don't know but certainly the lenses those two are banging out now are great quality as well as great value.
In reply to Post #2445
That nikon has been the lens that keeps cropping up in my research, but I don't have an adaptor for nikon glass and focus and V.R are pretty sketchy with the available adaptors by most accounts.
Lots of rumours that some of my favourite olympus lenses are made by sigma, plus being relatively new to photography compared to yourself, I've only really known sigma to make excellent, affordable but huge lenses.
I've ordered a new body so I'll have a play with it, see how it copes with c-af with the Canon glass I have, and if its use able I'll see what's cheapest if there isn't much between them.
Ken, macro is great for finding something interesting while confined, there's only so many times I could walk round the same garden though. I'm playing with flash a lot this week, studio portrait type stuff, water splashes etc, it'll give my flowers a chance to bloom and look very different in a fortnight
Keebs mentioned some of the projects in magazines being good, I picked up a copy of digital camera, seems to be mostly photoshop projects and adverts
I think if I wasn't still working I might use this time to get my head around photoshop, but I just don't enjoy the bit between pressing the shutter and the finished image
Thanks for the help guys
That nikon has been the lens that keeps cropping up in my research, but I don't have an adaptor for nikon glass and focus and V.R are pretty sketchy with the available adaptors by most accounts.
Lots of rumours that some of my favourite olympus lenses are made by sigma, plus being relatively new to photography compared to yourself, I've only really known sigma to make excellent, affordable but huge lenses.
I've ordered a new body so I'll have a play with it, see how it copes with c-af with the Canon glass I have, and if its use able I'll see what's cheapest if there isn't much between them.
Ken, macro is great for finding something interesting while confined, there's only so many times I could walk round the same garden though. I'm playing with flash a lot this week, studio portrait type stuff, water splashes etc, it'll give my flowers a chance to bloom and look very different in a fortnight
Keebs mentioned some of the projects in magazines being good, I picked up a copy of digital camera, seems to be mostly photoshop projects and adverts
I think if I wasn't still working I might use this time to get my head around photoshop, but I just don't enjoy the bit between pressing the shutter and the finished imageThanks for the help guys
In reply to Post #2448
A couple of good people to watch on YouTube
Stewart Wood for macro
Jordi Koalitic has some fantastic creative ideas
And take a look at some mushroom light photography, amazing stuff.
Also not sure if you are a member but Talk photography is a fantastic forum, lots of stuff their to discuss.
A couple of good people to watch on YouTube
Stewart Wood for macro
Jordi Koalitic has some fantastic creative ideas
And take a look at some mushroom light photography, amazing stuff.
Also not sure if you are a member but Talk photography is a fantastic forum, lots of stuff their to discuss.
In reply to Post #2449
I've seen those mushroom images before, they do look great, I might have a go with light painting flowers this week
I don't really do photo forums, there's a few sites I visit for inspiration but photographers seem a pretty argumentative bunch
I have been trying a few things this week on a sort of dramatic, emotive level, a kind of cathartic release, but I can't quite get them right and they're probably a bit 'dark' to share on here.
I might check out that forum for some constructive criticism if I can get them closer to the original vision
I've seen those mushroom images before, they do look great, I might have a go with light painting flowers this week
I don't really do photo forums, there's a few sites I visit for inspiration but photographers seem a pretty argumentative bunch
I have been trying a few things this week on a sort of dramatic, emotive level, a kind of cathartic release, but I can't quite get them right and they're probably a bit 'dark' to share on here.
I might check out that forum for some constructive criticism if I can get them closer to the original vision
Mk4 Snoot - best yet - lovely wide dispersion.
Crinkled foil lined and double layer of Polystyrene foam sheet on the front.
Downy Jumper - on the bathroom window sill, narrowly escaped the hoover!
Crinkled foil lined and double layer of Polystyrene foam sheet on the front.
Downy Jumper - on the bathroom window sill, narrowly escaped the hoover!
In reply to Post #2451
Wow
Amazing that spider picture, you can see all the eyes
Wow
Amazing that spider picture, you can see all the eyes
In reply to Post #2451
Great shot and I do like a homemade speedlight diffuser, plus jumping spiders do look good on a photo.
Great shot and I do like a homemade speedlight diffuser, plus jumping spiders do look good on a photo.
Harvestman - like a spider but not.
I have never been able to load images here before, actually I never had the urge to but recently I have seen some good photography on here so thought I would give it a go.
If this works its a Bald Eagle I saw on my travels last year, if it doesn't work its just a load of gibberish.
So here goes.
It was originally in a field with trees around it but I thought there was too much clutter so edited out everything but the head.
What size is best for on here?
If this works its a Bald Eagle I saw on my travels last year, if it doesn't work its just a load of gibberish.
So here goes.
It was originally in a field with trees around it but I thought there was too much clutter so edited out everything but the head.
What size is best for on here?
In reply to Post #2455
You can just add width=500 before the final > and it'll fit the page
I find it easier to do a linked image from imgbb but the quality is pretty poor
Cool shot
@keebs, light looking great now .
I want to get some black card to round off the corners on my box, I just find the square speculars unnatural.
I'm struggling to get my head round one thing with my macro lighting, done some portraits of my daughter and some other shots. using 2 speedlights, one bounced off a big brolly and one in a 2ft octobox type thing, both set very close to keep the background black, both at minimum power(1/128), and I had to stop down to f8 at base iso to avoid clipping highlights.
So why am I needing 1/8th at least to get f8 for a macro shot
You can just add width=500 before the final > and it'll fit the page
I find it easier to do a linked image from imgbb but the quality is pretty poor
Cool shot
@keebs, light looking great now
.I want to get some black card to round off the corners on my box, I just find the square speculars unnatural.
I'm struggling to get my head round one thing with my macro lighting, done some portraits of my daughter and some other shots. using 2 speedlights, one bounced off a big brolly and one in a 2ft octobox type thing, both set very close to keep the background black, both at minimum power(1/128), and I had to stop down to f8 at base iso to avoid clipping highlights.
So why am I needing 1/8th at least to get f8 for a macro shot
In reply to Post #2456
Thanks.
I will upload a couple of others in a bit.
Thanks.
I will upload a couple of others in a bit.
This is a doll house toy in front of quite a small waterfall, no photoshop just straight from the camera
Bug
In reply to Post #2458
Very nice stuff Ken
Duggs - all I can think of is relative surface area of the lights to the subject, something you pointed out to me further down and what led to the lumping great purple gaffa monstrosity on my camera
Very nice stuff Ken
Duggs - all I can think of is relative surface area of the lights to the subject, something you pointed out to me further down and what led to the lumping great purple gaffa monstrosity on my camera