ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17174873
40' "wasn't bad"? To me that IS bad for BBall. 10' for portraits is really bad depending on the size of the work space and the type of shot you want to get. Portraits at 3'? stranger things have been done.
All i'm saying is that it's a real shame that the Tamron is limiting in anyway.
40' it would be virtually imperceivable. I have a sample shot of 30', and even then, the difference is very hard to see. The real difference lies at very close distances, where you want a tight headshot with @200. That's the main factor right there.IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nMWUGr Captains orders on the Urban Submarine
in practice, you shouldnt see any difference. I shot with my brother's mk2 at the playground a few times, then the tamron a few times. If you're at a point where you're limited for reach like:
, on Flickr
shot at quite a distance away, there wont be any difference between the lenses.
however a close headshot:IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nNoYXQ Full Image
, on Flickr
you'll get more magnification with the canon. From my understanding, the nikon VRII suffers from this problem as well, so it's a common issue.
Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC