Tamron SP 150-600mm Di VC USD

Illume wrote in post #16688626
Here's a few from yesterday after the snow storm.


_MG_7475_CarolinaWren by Neal_Lewis, on Flickr


_MG_7301_Red-belliedWoodpecker_male by Neal_Lewis, on Flickr


_MG_6659_CarolinaWren_​crop by Neal_Lewis, on Flickr


_MG_6808_Bluejay by Neal_Lewis, on Flickr


_MG_6972_DownyWoodpeck​er_male by Neal_Lewis, on Flickr


_MG_7123_EuropeanStarl​ing by Neal_Lewis, on Flickr

Beautiful.

John Sheehy wrote in post #16691351
How would you compare the 400 DO + 1.4x TC to the Tamron?

The 400 DO + 1.4 TC seemed better to me, faster AF and slightly better IQ. But...it didn't zoom and the extra $2,500 net in my pocket makes the Tamron the winner to me. That money can go towards an older "big white" prime someday if I really miss it. A 300 non-IS 500 4.5, or 400 non-IS. Either way the Tamron will get used plenty.

The weather was finally nice enough to get out a bit this weekend and shoot. I still need a lot of practice with this lens, but it was definitely better than my first outing.

Wow... I just tested this DxO Optics Pro 9 software, with it's PRIME noise removal methods.... very very impressive...

Left image is Raw (No noise reduction), Right is PRIME image. The only downside, is that it takes like 5min to export the image... but it's worth it I think.

As you can see, it still retains very good fine detail. I'll be testing this out more tomorrow

From the 150-600 lens thread... but this seems to be more popular in discussing the merits / demerits of the lens.

Some different kinds of birds from the Singapore Airshow 2014, went as press on a better day, but it's still hazy. Bumped saturation and some contrast as well as some exposure. Mostly JPGs.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/headshotzx/12​569384943/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/headshotzx/12​569385663/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/headshotzx/12​569388433/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/headshotzx/12​569281265/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/headshotzx/12​569394643/

Finally got a LensAlign and did proper MFA on my 70d and 6d. Took a -19 adjustment on the 70d Tele end but now I like the results. The 6d needed -1 on the Tele.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jvthept/1257704​5343/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jvthept/1257739​2834/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jvthept/1256295​3623/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jvthept/1256283​3185/

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16694998
Wow... I just tested this DxO Optics Pro 9 software, with it's PRIME noise removal methods.... very very impressive...

Left image is Raw (No noise reduction), Right is PRIME image. The only downside, is that it takes like 5min to export the image... but it's worth it I think.

As you can see, it still retains very good fine detail. I'll be testing this out more tomorrow

Great examples of ETTR and noise reduction. I'll be looking into noise more myself for use with LR5. Perhaps the Adobe software is best or maybe there are a few good plugins around.

Snydremark wrote in post #16693738
Some nice stuff rolling through here guys!

@Sanil: What is that last bird?

no idea.. just got into birding with this lens..

Really thinkin of getting this lens. I have a 70-200 f4 with 1.4xii with a t1i that I use for wildlife. My question is do you think this lens will work well with this body? I know most reviews and people who have this lens use nicer, more recen bodies.

What do you think? Thanks. The images in this thread are making it very hard to resist.

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16694212
Oh, here is an example of what Exposing to the Right of the Histogram can do for noise. I exposed the right image 1 stop higher than the left, and brought it back down in Lightroom. The negatives of this are, possibly clipping highlights, and slower shutter speeds. But as you can see, there is drastically less noise.

I saw the ETTR recommendation many times and honestly haven't found it helped me... but this is interesting. It looks like you exposed brighter by slowing shutter speed.

In your example you could also lower shutter speed and lower ISO to 1000 instead of keeping it at 2000 and lowering the exposure in software. I am not sure if that would be better or not, but noise would probably be similar (or maybe better?)?

When I'm using high ISO I'm almost always at the limit of my aperture and shutter speed. The only way to ETTR would be to raise ISO and lower exposure back in software... but IME this doesn't help. In most cases I already slightly raise dark areas and lower bright areas and exposing brighter to begin with would probably (more often than not) clip too much...

Sorry this is a bit off topic... but maybe there is a thread that explains how this works? From what I read about it before and what I tried I didn't find that it helped me...

clarnibass wrote in post #16695864
I saw the ETTR recommendation many times and honestly haven't found it helped me... but this is interesting. It looks like you exposed brighter by slowing shutter speed.

In your example you could also lower shutter speed and lower ISO to 1000 instead of keeping it at 2000 and lowering the exposure in software. I am not sure if that would be better or not, but noise would probably be similar (or maybe better?)?

When I'm using high ISO I'm almost always at the limit of my aperture and shutter speed. The only way to ETTR would be to raise ISO and lower exposure back in software... but IME this doesn't help. In most cases I already slightly raise dark areas and lower bright areas and exposing brighter to begin with would probably (more often than not) clip too much...

Sorry this is a bit off topic... but maybe there is a thread that explains how this works? From what I read about it before and what I tried I didn't find that it helped me...

Yes, I find the same. For some scenarios (e.g. landscape work) ETTR is very useful, as you can use longer exposures to increase the signal-to-noise ratio. However, when I'm pushed for needing higher ISO settings, it's usually because I need a faster shutter speed - therefore overexposing using a longer shutter speed is rarely useful.

I've seen it mentioned quite a few times that the 7D really benefits from a bit of ETTR (in terms of reducing noise) when using higher ISO settings - but it's always struck me as counter to the point of using a higher ISO setting (i.e. keeping the shutter speed up).

I suppose there may be scenarios where you have a (just) sufficient shutter speed at some ISO setting, and the noise will be better if you go up one ISO stop (e.g. from 1000 to 2000) but then over expose slightly by not speeding up your shutter by a full stop (e.g. instead of going from 1/100 to 1/200, go to 1/125 or 1/160).

mike325 wrote in post #16695834
Really thinkin of getting this lens. I have a 70-200 f4 with 1.4xii with a t1i that I use for wildlife. My question is do you think this lens will work well with this body? I know most reviews and people who have this lens use nicer, more recen bodies.

What do you think? Thanks. The images in this thread are making it very hard to resist.

Just try to google. I couldnt find anything on the net when I tried. Try the lens on camera from a shop with refund policy - is what I recommend..

clarnibass wrote in post #16695864
I saw the ETTR ... but maybe there is a thread that explains how this works? From what I read about it before and what I tried I didn't find that it helped me...

sploo wrote in post #16695896
Yes, I find the same. For some scenarios (e.g. landscape work) ETTR is ...

In general you have to expose properly to begin with and then ETTR. One of the real good threads about ETTR is here: https://photography-on-the.net …p?t=744235&high​light=ETTR


Cheers.

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16694151
Was that you I met down there today Peter2516? I had the black car, and we both had the Tamron? Or was that someone else?

I got to test this thing in the rain today, not by choice exactly. It was sunny all morning, but as soon as I got to the local spot, it rained on me. But the lens worked fine, and actually really good in very dim light/low contrast/ect. I was tracking some BIF/Wind Surfers across the lake just fine.

Hi Matt yeah that was me. I had a feeling it was you also. Yeah I saw you looking in their direction and that is good that you are tracking the wind surfers just fine. I think the AF is functioning well with my lens too. I think I just have to be familiar with AF limiter switch and know the distance of my target.

Btw I stayed until 2:30 and the rain is kind of on and off and hails also around 1:30pm, this lens did very well in the rain but I have to cover my 7D .

RAW-Shooter wrote in post #16695921
In general you have to expose properly to begin with and then ETTR. One of the real good threads about ETTR is here: https://photography-on-the.net …p?t=744235&high​light=ETTR


Cheers.

Thanks for the link! I believe on the 5D III, if you use Magic Lantern, there is an Auto ETTR option, that will try to not clip highlights. That could be very useful, if it worked well.

I'll experiment more today with differen't ISOs/Shutter Speeds. To see if I can get similar noise and detail.

As far as Noise Reduction goes, just in that initial test of DxO, I almost want to say that it's the best I've seen/used. I've tried Topaz Denoise,along with 3-4 other applications/methods, as well as using Lightroom. The others aren't bad by any means. But DxO seems to just do it right, with 1 click, and waiting a little bit of time.

I'm going to test this again in a minute, on a photo from Alaska I took in 2012, of some whales. It was poor conditions, and the final image was super grainy . This was also from my lack of knowledge/experience. I feel DxO may recover the image extremely well.