Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 14, 2006, 12:19 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:


That's a great shot of the cat. I am kind of torn on this lens. It seems like it works well in a "controlled environment", meaning when one has the time to set up properly for each shot, the subject isn't moving, etc. However, when I shoot my kids playing or such things, I get too many blurry, fuzzy, low-contrast, off color shots. When I switch back to my Tamron 28-300, it nails them.

I will do some comparisons this coming weekend. I want to make up my mind about this lens.

Rainer
That's odd that moving objects would be worse or blurrieron a faster lens.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2006, 12:29 PM   #12
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

It may be because you're shooting with smaller apertures (higher f/stop numbers) with the Tamron, too.

You've got less room for error if you're shooting wide open with a longer lens. So, if you're not careful, and lock focus while the subject is still moving, you could get OOF shots.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2006, 1:18 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

meanstreak wrote:
Quote:
rduve wrote:
Quote:


That's a great shot of the cat. I am kind of torn on this lens. It seems like it works well in a "controlled environment", meaning when one has the time to set up properly for each shot, the subject isn't moving, etc. However, when I shoot my kids playing or such things, I get too many blurry, fuzzy, low-contrast, off color shots. When I switch back to my Tamron 28-300, it nails them.

I will do some comparisons this coming weekend. I want to make up my mind about this lens.

Rainer
That's odd that moving objects would be worse or blurrieron a faster lens.
Smartass...:blah:. Maybe you are right andthat is reason. When I run my comparisons, I will do them in Aperture Priority Mode to be fair. Believe me, I want this lens to work for me.

Rainer




rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2006, 1:34 PM   #14
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

The only chance I've had to use mine much was at a Mother's Finest concert not long ago, shooting from the crowd in front of the stage (as you can see from the hands reaching out at the bottom of the next image).

I'm playing "nurse" right now to my wife (she had foot surgery). So, I haven't gotten out much lately.

But, as long as I was careful with my focus point, locking on the face versus body (and I'm not always careful), it seemed to do OK at wider apertures.

Here's one at 85mm and f/4. The head looks fine to my eyes, and DOF is going to be relatively shallow filling the frame this much at 85mm and f/4. No sharpening.



Here's a head shot from the same concert at 210mm (where the lens is softest according to MTF Charts), with the aperture wide open at f/4, and framed this tight at f/4, DOF is going to be very shallow ( (i.e., one eye sharp, the other not)..

I tweaked the contrast just a tad on this one. But, no sharpening.




JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2006, 10:38 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Wow, Mother's Finest! I remember them from the late 70's. They performed a concert that was broadcast across EuropeanTVas part of the "Rockpalast" series of concerts. That's where I got my first glimpse of Prince, Joe Jackson, and many others. Those shots are nice. As I said, I have to do more test shots to really form an opinion about this lens. It's just doesn't seem to render the results I am used to from candids in P mode.

Rainer
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2006, 11:24 PM   #16
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
Wow, Mother's Finest! I remember them from the late 70's.
Yep. Mother's Finest put on a concert on October 7th 2006 at Tybee Island, Georgia. So, I put the 5D into Anti-Shove mode and took some photos from the packed in crowd in front of the stage.

That's where all of the previous photos from the Vivitar 70-210mm f/2.8-4 came from (except for the cat). lol

Here are some at ISO 1600 and f/4 with the Vivitar from the same Mother's Finest Concert.





[img]attachment.php?id=82670[/img]


















JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2006, 11:55 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
rduve wrote:
Quote:
Wow, Mother's Finest! I remember them from the late 70's.
Yep. Mother's Finest put on a concert on October 7th 2006 at Tybee Island, Georgia. So, I put the 5D into Anti-Shove mode and took some photos from the packed in crowd in front of the stage.

That's where all of the previous photos from the Vivitar 70-210mm f/2.8-4 came from (except for the cat). lol

Here are some at ISO 1600 and f/4 with the Vivitar from the same Mother's Finest Concert.
I think the guitarist's hair could use a little Antishake.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2006, 2:27 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

I ran a few comparison shots between my Tamron 28-300 and the Vivitar Series 70-210 2.8-4. This is what I found: Correct the Vivitar by -2/3 EV and they are quite comparable. So, the complaints I had about fuzzy pictures etc. were based on haze caused by overexposure. Easily corrected by stepping down by about 2/3. This applies to outdoors sunlit pictures. Inside, such as in music clubs, etc. the Vivitar's tendency to overexpose comes in actually quite handy. It makes it in fact even faster than the advertised 2.8-4 maximum aperture.

By the way, I also have the Vivitar Series 1 100-400 4.5-6.7 (picked it up used for $60 on ebay) which has the same tendency to overexpose (if not quite as much). It really is quite a capable lens, too. Keep your eyes open for it. It might come in handy for a safari.



Rainer
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2006, 6:10 PM   #19
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I'm not sure it's really any brighter than specified.

It's more likely the way the lens coatings are influencing the camera's meter (the camera is probably choosing a larger aperture and/or slower shutter speed compared to the way it meters with other lenses, depending on your shooting mode).

We'd have to try it in controlled conditions (same subject, same lighting) using manual exposure with the same aperture and shutter speed settings with more than one lens to find out though. If it really is brighter than rated, that would be a bonus. lol

I have noticed the overexposure tendency in some of the comparisons I've seen elsewhere. But, from my perspective, it's not a big deal since you can easily compensate for it.

I still haven't had a chance to use this lens outside in good light yet (and I may not anytime soon). But, for low light stuff (concerts, etc.) where light is good enough that I don't need a prime, it seems fine from my limited use so far, especially considering it's price.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2006, 5:14 AM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 13
Default

I'm jealous of that 100-400. I bid on a couple - considerably more than the $60 you paid - lost the auctions and gave up. Maybe I'll try again. I can use the extra reach for baseball shots, although mounting a 2X converter on my Series 1 70-210 works also. I'd like to see some shots from the 100-400 if you get a chance to do that.

I'm the guy who JimC mentioned posted some beercan/Viv 70-210 comparison shots on another forum. Those pics are at http://kleinoak.org/pics/vivitar_vs_...s_beercan2.htm

I'm expecting to get some use out of the Vivitar for basketball pictures also. So far, though, we haven't been in a gym big enough to need that much reach. [I'm loaning my 5D out to parents to shoot and they often want to shoot from the stands.] I have used, instead, my new Vivitar Series I 28-105 f2.8-3.8. It's fast, but otherwise it has been disappointing - not very sharp. I can't tell too much, though, as these basketball parents aren't very good photographers. [I have lots of shots of the rafters!]
garykohs is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:24 AM.