Girlfriend thinks I Cheating, HELP

snerkler

Distinguished Member
Ok, even if just for a day or two to try out before buying?
By the time you’ve paid for postage you’d be looking at over £100/day for 3 lenses, and could be well over £100/day depending on the lenses.
 

Boogieman

Standard Member
By the time you’ve paid for postage you’d be looking at over £100/day for 3 lenses, and could be well over £100/day depending on the lenses.
Ok, dunno how it Works in Australia, but here in Sweden there is a pretty neat option.
1. Buy 3 lenses online (Swedish online sellers)
2. From the day of recieving the product You are allowed to insepct it without inducing physical damaged and still being able to return it at a full refund. You can test it, but it must be returned in a condition "as new" (aka no scratches or if i.e. phone with software it should be reset to default or if software to install online any "buy codes" are not allowed to be used/installed on a user ...OF COURSE :D)
3. Very carefully unpack and test each lens, keeping as much of the protections intact. Test the 2-3 lenses out that are interesting
4. Return the 2 that are not interesting and keep the one that is. Get refunded for the two returned.

Thats how it works here as I said - no idea how it works outside Europe.

Its a pretty nice concept that protects the customer instead of the (often not so flawless) online companies.
+ market gets self regulating. Companies cant sell sh*t as they will get it in return
+ newcomers are often sprouting taking the spots of "sh*t companies"
+ Online resellers that offer ZERO service, get products in return and quickly die
= Left are the top grain that offer service and good products at very good - to - decent prices (often very good to good).
+ New sprouts appear ever so often to compete when the "top grain" slouches off ;()

Do we get "slightly used products" when we buy new ones?
Sometimes yes, but at those times its often very hard to see (if at all)

If product HAS been used inproperly or anything is missing in package like manual or a cable, the price is reduced and sold as "2nd quality" with a small to big discount that often selfom matters if your buying i.e. a GPU or a lens. I mean who needs a nice box, a manual or a USB cable nowadays :)
Of course if the guy who bought and returned the item "broken" he allready paid the "discount" (likely even more as the retailer wants to make a profit on careless people)
 

snerkler

Distinguished Member
Ok, dunno how it Works in Australia, but here in Sweden there is a pretty neat option.
1. Buy 3 lenses online (Swedish online sellers)
2. From the day of recieving the product You are allowed to insepct it without inducing physical damaged and still being able to return it at a full refund. You can test it, but it must be returned in a condition "as new" (aka no scratches or if i.e. phone with software it should be reset to default or if software to install online any "buy codes" are not allowed to be used/installed on a user ...OF COURSE :D)
3. Very carefully unpack and test each lens, keeping as much of the protections intact. Test the 2-3 lenses out that are interesting
4. Return the 2 that are not interesting and keep the one that is. Get refunded for the two returned.

Thats how it works here as I said - no idea how it works outside Europe.

Its a pretty nice concept that protects the customer instead of the (often not so flawless) online companies.
+ market gets self regulating. Companies cant sell sh*t as they will get it in return
+ newcomers are often sprouting taking the spots of "sh*t companies"
+ Online resellers that offer ZERO service, get products in return and quickly die
= Left are the top grain that offer service and good products at very good - to - decent prices (often very good to good).
+ New sprouts appear ever so often to compete when the "top grain" slouches off ;()

Do we get "slightly used products" when we buy new ones?
Sometimes yes, but at those times its often very hard to see (if at all)

If product HAS been used inproperly or anything is missing in package like manual or a cable, the price is reduced and sold as "2nd quality" with a small to big discount that often selfom matters if your buying i.e. a GPU or a lens. I mean who needs a nice box, a manual or a USB cable nowadays :)
Of course if the guy who bought and returned the item "broken" he allready paid the "discount" (likely even more as the retailer wants to make a profit on careless people)
Well I’m in the UK so it kind of works the same but then it comes down to ethics. You’re not supposed to buy to test, you’re only supposed to return if it’s faulty or doesn’t suit your needs. Buying with intent to test and return is unethical imo. YMMV
 

Johnmcl7

Distinguished Member
Well I’m in the UK so it kind of works the same but then it comes down to ethics. You’re not supposed to buy to test, you’re only supposed to return if it’s faulty or doesn’t suit your needs. Buying with intent to test and return is unethical imo. YMMV

My thoughts are the same and some companies are very clear about that:

The item must be complete and in the same condition in which you received it:
  • If you have opened the box to examine the product you must have done so without damaging or marking the product or packaging
  • You haven't used the item (items are not sold on a trial basis)
  • The item contains no personal data and hasn't been registered to a user
  • Used items must not have any additional signs of use or damage.

 

Johnmcl7

Distinguished Member
Thanks to this topic I'm now seriously thinking I should sell my relatively unused Tamron 150-600mm and go for the Sony 100-400mm I've been fancying.
 

Ugg10

Distinguished Member
Thanks to this topic I'm now seriously thinking I should sell my relatively unused Tamron 150-600mm and go for the Sony 100-400mm I've been fancying.

For info, (sorry a bit off topic) I have had good responses from LCE Lemington Spa and also SRS Microsystems in Watford for trade in against a new lens (Tamron 12-28 against Samyang and Canon 70-200+1.4x against Sigma 100-400). Worth getting a few quotes for trade in to see which is the best deal, they do differ depending on what they are looking for/how easy to shift and what deals they have on the new stuff. This will also give you an idea of what you need to clear in the classifieds/auction to make it worth the hassle. IIRC both offered freepost/courier to sent back.
 

newbie1

Distinguished Member
@Johnmcl7 why little used do you think? I wouldn’t part with my 600...
 

Johnmcl7

Distinguished Member
@Johnmcl7 why little used do you think? I wouldn’t part with my 600...

As I mentioned earlier for my use it's just too bulky and heavy so I find I just don't take it with me. I usually carry my equipment a fair distance which I find the 150-600mm too much for and instead only use it when I'm carrying it briefly. I went to a race track last year which was one of the main reasons I bought the 150-600mm originally but when packing it up I thought there's no way I'd carry that with me all day and after walking 13 miles each day even the lighter equipment I went with was weighing me down after a while. I find it quite hard work hand holding it for any period of time as well which I find I need to track moving subjects.

That's just my personal experience though and I'm not saying 150-600mm are no use for anyone just that someone wanting such a lens should be aware of the size. The image quality from the lens is great and the stabilisation works incredibly well even at 600mm.
 

snerkler

Distinguished Member
As I mentioned earlier for my use it's just too bulky and heavy so I find I just don't take it with me. I usually carry my equipment a fair distance which I find the 150-600mm too much for and instead only use it when I'm carrying it briefly. I went to a race track last year which was one of the main reasons I bought the 150-600mm originally but when packing it up I thought there's no way I'd carry that with me all day and after walking 13 miles each day even the lighter equipment I went with was weighing me down after a while. I find it quite hard work hand holding it for any period of time as well which I find I need to track moving subjects.

That's just my personal experience though and I'm not saying 150-600mm are no use for anyone just that someone wanting such a lens should be aware of the size. The image quality from the lens is great and the stabilisation works incredibly well even at 600mm.
Yep, I found my 150-600mm tiresome on full days too.
 

sploo

Banned
Of the lenses discussed, the Canon EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II (important to go for the newer version II) probably has the best image quality. I'm not familiar with the newer 150-600mm lenses, but if I recall correctly the original Tamron 150-600 was pretty soft at the long end (such that you'd arguably get better results cropping a 400mm shot from the Canon 100-400 II). Some of the newer models might be better.

One (extra cost) option for more flexibility would be to add the Canon EF 1.4x Extender (for the 1.4x model, the version II or III are optically very similar). Adding that between the lens and the body effectively multiplies everything by 1.4x, so the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 becomes a 140-560 f/6.3-8. The downside of this approach is that the old 600D won't autofocus with a lens "slower" than f/5.6 (the third party f/6.3 lenses "cheat" the body in order to preserve focus). The 600D might autofocus using liveview (the rear LCD) but it'll likely fail through the optical viewfinder. That may or may not be a problem - on a tripod or monopod, manually focusing may be acceptable for the extra reach gained.

Within reason (i.e. starting with a decent lens) an extender (sometimes called Teleconverter) will give better results that just cropping the resulting image file harder.
 

snerkler

Distinguished Member
Of the lenses discussed, the Canon EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II (important to go for the newer version II) probably has the best image quality. I'm not familiar with the newer 150-600mm lenses, but if I recall correctly the original Tamron 150-600 was pretty soft at the long end (such that you'd arguably get better results cropping a 400mm shot from the Canon 100-400 II). Some of the newer models might be better.

One (extra cost) option for more flexibility would be to add the Canon EF 1.4x Extender (for the 1.4x model, the version II or III are optically very similar). Adding that between the lens and the body effectively multiplies everything by 1.4x, so the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 becomes a 140-560 f/6.3-8. The downside of this approach is that the old 600D won't autofocus with a lens "slower" than f/5.6 (the third party f/6.3 lenses "cheat" the body in order to preserve focus). The 600D might autofocus using liveview (the rear LCD) but it'll likely fail through the optical viewfinder. That may or may not be a problem - on a tripod or monopod, manually focusing may be acceptable for the extra reach gained.

Within reason (i.e. starting with a decent lens) an extender (sometimes called Teleconverter) will give better results that just cropping the resulting image file harder.
The original Tamron was actually very good up to 550mm from my experience, and if you use this as a guide there's negligible difference between the Tamron wide open at 500mm (doesn't have 550mm) and the Canon 100-400mm II wide open at 400mm in the centre of the frame, the Canon wins on the edges though. However, view the Canon at 560mm (ie with a 1.4x TC) and the quality degrades quite a bit.

 

sploo

Banned
The original Tamron was actually very good up to 550mm from my experience, and if you use this as a guide there's negligible difference between the Tamron wide open at 500mm (doesn't have 550mm) and the Canon 100-400mm II wide open at 400mm in the centre of the frame, the Canon wins on the edges though. However, view the Canon at 560mm (ie with a 1.4x TC) and the quality degrades quite a bit.

That "TDP" lens comparison is very useful (I've used it a lot over the years); though obviously the low number of samples per lens means he can't really account for sample variation.

I thought (from data on the DxO site) that the Tamron got pretty ropey much past 500mm. That said, the Tamron will AF at 500mm+ and f/6.3 on an older Canon body, but the 100-400 with the extender won't.

The "right" choice is obviously a 1Dx II with a 600mm f/4, but, hey, money, etc. :D
 

newbie1

Distinguished Member

shotokan101

Banned
Yeah but you don't have a restraining order on you because of complaints from the neighbours..... :eek:


@Johnmcl7 why little used do you think? I wouldn’t part with my 600...
 

newbie1

Distinguished Member
Only the martians have complained so far ;)
 

cerebros

Active Member
What I don't think I've seen anyone mention here is the consideration of the minimum focus distance, which is how close you can get to the subject and still get the lens to focus on it. (Which in turn affects the maximum size your subject appears in the frame)

yes, I know you're probably thinking to yourselves that the whole point of a telephoto lens is to photograph things that are further away but a lens with a shorter minimum focus distance helps out a lot if you're trying to shoot something you can get closer to.

I know the OP said his girlfriend is shooting in the garden but if she wanted to use the lens on a trip to the zoo, for example, in enclosures for smaller animals you can find that you can't get far enough away to achieve focus on the subject. For example, I have a 100-400mm lens for my Fuji X-T1, which has a minimum focus distance of 1.75m. On a trip to one of the local kiddies farms which also has rescued owls, in some areas I couldn't get more than that distance away to photograph the owls.

In this aspect, the Canon 100-400 Mk II runs rings round the Sigma and Tamrons at the same focal length with a minimum focusing distance of .98m, giving a maximum magnification of the subject at the close focus point of 0.31 times. The Sigma and Tamron equivalents need around an extra half metre distance to focus with a maximum magnification of 0.26 and 0.28 respectively.

On the 150-600mm lenses you're looking at over 2m distance to your subject (I think the Tamron Mk II was about 2.2m and the two Sigmas were 2.6m and 2.8m).

If the girlfriend absolutely needs the extra reach of the 600mm I'd probably say the Tamron Mk II, otherwise I'd say the Canon 100-400 Mk II wins hands down any day as the close focusing makes it far more versatile.
 

snerkler

Distinguished Member
What I don't think I've seen anyone mention here is the consideration of the minimum focus distance, which is how close you can get to the subject and still get the lens to focus on it. (Which in turn affects the maximum size your subject appears in the frame)

yes, I know you're probably thinking to yourselves that the whole point of a telephoto lens is to photograph things that are further away but a lens with a shorter minimum focus distance helps out a lot if you're trying to shoot something you can get closer to.

I know the OP said his girlfriend is shooting in the garden but if she wanted to use the lens on a trip to the zoo, for example, in enclosures for smaller animals you can find that you can't get far enough away to achieve focus on the subject. For example, I have a 100-400mm lens for my Fuji X-T1, which has a minimum focus distance of 1.75m. On a trip to one of the local kiddies farms which also has rescued owls, in some areas I couldn't get more than that distance away to photograph the owls.

In this aspect, the Canon 100-400 Mk II runs rings round the Sigma and Tamrons at the same focal length with a minimum focusing distance of .98m, giving a maximum magnification of the subject at the close focus point of 0.31 times. The Sigma and Tamron equivalents need around an extra half metre distance to focus with a maximum magnification of 0.26 and 0.28 respectively.

On the 150-600mm lenses you're looking at over 2m distance to your subject (I think the Tamron Mk II was about 2.2m and the two Sigmas were 2.6m and 2.8m).

If the girlfriend absolutely needs the extra reach of the 600mm I'd probably say the Tamron Mk II, otherwise I'd say the Canon 100-400 Mk II wins hands down any day as the close focusing makes it far more versatile.
Close focussing distance may be a factor certainly, but I would say the Canon is more versatile as it’s not got the reach so it’s a trade off :smashin:

That’s what’s so great about the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm, you get 200-800mm effective focal length with a min focus distance of 1.3m giving a 0.5x magnification all in a package weighing under 1kg.
 

shotokan101

Banned
Look if your looking at 400mm+ lenses then MFD isn't likely IMO to be a real consideration and these tele-zooms for wildlife aren't being positioned as all-in-one lenses.....
 

shotokan101

Banned
Close focussing distance may be a factor certainly, but I would say the Canon is more versatile as it’s not got the reach so it’s a trade off :smashin:

That’s what’s so great about the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm, you get 200-800mm effective focal length with a min focus distance of 1.3m giving a 0.5x magnification all in a package weighing under 1kg.

0.5x? :confused:
 

sploo

Banned
Look if your looking at 400mm+ lenses then MFD isn't likely IMO to be a real consideration and these tele-zooms for wildlife aren't being positioned as all-in-one lenses.....
I've seen quite a few who use the 100-400mm laud the MFD as very useful - especially for subjects such as dragonflies. Granted a birder would (I assume) not really ever get that close to the subject.

0.5x as in "is that good?" or 0.5x as in "what does that mean?"

If it's the latter - it's the Maximum Magnification. 1x essentially means that you could fill the frame of a 36mm wide ("full frame") sensor with a subject that was 36mm wide. An MM of 0.5x means the largest reproduction possible would be half real size - i.e. a 72mm wide subject projected onto the 36mm wide sensor.
 

shotokan101

Banned
I've seen quite a few who use the 100-400mm laud the MFD as very useful - especially for subjects such as dragonflies. Granted a birder would (I assume) not really ever get that close to the subject.


0.5x as in "is that good?" or 0.5x as in "what does that mean?"

If it's the latter - it's the Maximum Magnification. 1x essentially means that you could fill the frame of a 36mm wide ("full frame") sensor with a subject that was 36mm wide. An MM of 0.5x means the largest reproduction possible would be half real size - i.e. a 72mm wide subject projected onto the 36mm wide sensor.

No - I was coming from the perspective of its a magnification ratio and as it's in the context of a m4/3 sensor then it's a 2x magnification of the focal length and as I don't think macro photography had been mentioned I didn't for one moment think about the sensor ratio and in any case isn't that more usually expressed as 1:x?
 

sploo

Banned
No - I was coming from the perspective of its a magnification ratio and as it's in the context of a m4/3 sensor then it's a 2x magnification of the focal length and as I don't think macro photography had been mentioned I didn't for one moment think about the sensor ratio and in any case isn't that more usually expressed as 1:x?
Ah OK. Yes (to both points).

The 2x magnification is more just down to cropping though. Ignoring the number of pixels in the images, you'd get same result on a m4/3 + 100mm lens as you would on a full frame + 100mm lens and taking a crop out of the middle of the full frame photo (that was half the original width and height).
 

snerkler

Distinguished Member
No - I was coming from the perspective of its a magnification ratio and as it's in the context of a m4/3 sensor then it's a 2x magnification of the focal length and as I don't think macro photography had been mentioned I didn't for one moment think about the sensor ratio and in any case isn't that more usually expressed as 1:x?
0.5x in 35mm equivalent :smashin:
 

edward

Active Member
Another plug for the Canon 100 - 400... if she starts at 100 mm, she can find the target much easier. Once found, she can zoom in and get that great shot. Scouring even a small bit of landscape at 400 mm is a challenge, especially if she's trying to snatch a shot before the subject has changed.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Maverick UK Premiere IMAX Review + Top Gun, Tom Cruise, Tony Scott and 4K + Movie/TV News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

LG UltraGear Gaming Monitors get VESA certification
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Sony confirms UK pricing for A90K and A75K Bravia XR 4K OLED TVs
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
LG announces new CineBeam HU915QE 4K laser projector
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Movies Podcast | Maverick IMAX Review, 4K Disc News and More
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom