Steve'sDigicams

ennacac · Mar 6, 2008, 7:04 PM

Now that my LBA is complete here is the first shot with the new 300mm lens.

Hey it was -7F this morning and not much was out and I needed to take a picture!

Tom

robar · Mar 6, 2008, 8:16 PM

looks like the sigma does it's job. how's it compare to the *300 ??

roy

snostorm · Mar 6, 2008, 9:27 PM

Hi Tom,

Looking very good! Your subject is cute, but looks bored -- but then maybe it was just frozen -- (-7!! new lens or not, I'd not be venturing out at all)

I'd be interested to see how it does with the 1.7x AFA. Nothing like a "compact" 510 f4.8. . .

. . . and at the price, I assume no buyer's remorse.:-)

Scott

mtngal · Mar 6, 2008, 10:13 PM

He might not be so wild, but he's cute and I love the light on his fur. The lens does look like it's a nice one - are you going to keep both lenses?

ennacac · Mar 6, 2008, 10:19 PM

I need to do more shooting with it to make a fair comparison, although the FA* 300 is hard to beat. I just hope it will work out so that I can take advantage of the 2.8 on the new 300 in low light situations.

It has some quirks that I need to work out, but so far it looks like it may be just fine.

The new lens is actually quite heavy compared to my FA*, so I will be keeping both at least for a while.

Tom

bilybianca · Mar 6, 2008, 11:35 PM

If you're not satisfied with that I don't know what to say, but I know in who's bin you can toss the lens.

A very nice shot, not only technically.

Kjell

ennacac · Mar 6, 2008, 11:52 PM

Kjell, it is not that I am not satisfied with it, but the lens has built in filters that go in the back and the filter holder has a clear filter that is cemented to the insert. Any other filters need to be screwed into the clear filter and then dropped into the top of the lens.

I found that the clear filter took away some of the sharpness of the images, so I took it out for the photo I posted and then it is sharp, at least to my eyes. Anyway here are two photos the first without the filter.

This one with the filter.

Tom

robar · Mar 7, 2008, 12:13 AM

definate difference except the lighting was definately different..

roy
ah, did that make sense???

ennacac · Mar 7, 2008, 8:06 AM

I realze the lighting it different and the last one is actually sharp if you look at it closely, but I think the contrast is more on the first one, which makes it look sharper. The first one was taken in the afternoon light (2:18PM) and the other about mid day (9:47AM).

Try your Tamron Roy and see how that works out with your lens with the filter removed. I have found that digital isn't as fogiving as film when shooting through an extra piece of glass, which is why I don't use UV filters on my lenses any more like I did with film.

Tom

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Mar 6, 2008, 7:04 PM	#1
ennacac Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,198	Now that my LBA is complete here is the first shot with the new 300mm lens. Hey it was -7F this morning and not much was out and I needed to take a picture! Tom

Mar 6, 2008, 8:16 PM	#2
robar Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: D/FW area Texas Posts: 7,590	looks like the sigma does it's job. how's it compare to the *300 ?? roy

Mar 6, 2008, 9:27 PM	#3
snostorm Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA Posts: 2,770	Hi Tom, Looking very good! Your subject is cute, but looks bored -- but then maybe it was just frozen -- (-7!! new lens or not, I'd not be venturing out at all) I'd be interested to see how it does with the 1.7x AFA. Nothing like a "compact" 510 f4.8. . . . . . and at the price, I assume no buyer's remorse.:-) Scott

Mar 6, 2008, 10:13 PM	#4
mtngal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Frazier Park, CA Posts: 16,177	He might not be so wild, but he's cute and I love the light on his fur. The lens does look like it's a nice one - are you going to keep both lenses?

Mar 6, 2008, 10:19 PM	#5
ennacac Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,198	I need to do more shooting with it to make a fair comparison, although the FA* 300 is hard to beat. I just hope it will work out so that I can take advantage of the 2.8 on the new 300 in low light situations. It has some quirks that I need to work out, but so far it looks like it may be just fine. The new lens is actually quite heavy compared to my FA*, so I will be keeping both at least for a while. Tom

Mar 6, 2008, 11:35 PM	#6
bilybianca Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Hassleholm, Sweden Posts: 3,457	If you're not satisfied with that I don't know what to say, but I know in who's bin you can toss the lens. A very nice shot, not only technically. Kjell

Mar 6, 2008, 11:52 PM	#7
ennacac Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,198	Kjell, it is not that I am not satisfied with it, but the lens has built in filters that go in the back and the filter holder has a clear filter that is cemented to the insert. Any other filters need to be screwed into the clear filter and then dropped into the top of the lens. I found that the clear filter took away some of the sharpness of the images, so I took it out for the photo I posted and then it is sharp, at least to my eyes. Anyway here are two photos the first without the filter. This one with the filter. Tom

Mar 7, 2008, 12:13 AM	#8
robar Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: D/FW area Texas Posts: 7,590	definate difference except the lighting was definately different.. roy ah, did that make sense???

Mar 7, 2008, 8:06 AM	#9
ennacac Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,198	I realze the lighting it different and the last one is actually sharp if you look at it closely, but I think the contrast is more on the first one, which makes it look sharper. The first one was taken in the afternoon light (2:18PM) and the other about mid day (9:47AM). Try your Tamron Roy and see how that works out with your lens with the filter removed. I have found that digital isn't as fogiving as film when shooting through an extra piece of glass, which is why I don't use UV filters on my lenses any more like I did with film. Tom