daniel_tong1 Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 A*300mmF/4 Indoor with direct flash http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/image/62732784 FA135 + 2X Indoor with bounce flash http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/image/61592444 How would you guys rate each? Daniel, Toronto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben conover Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Hi Daniel, I want to buy the SMC 135 2.5 because it has the best reviews of all. So, I'm gonna save for it. Without looking at the photo's I'd rate each differently and not as a direct comparison. Different flash technique, and different lenses. Apples and Oranges. Also, my montor is so so bad that any image you post from 35mm to large format is gonna look the same. Send me poster size B+W ISO 25 optical prints of the Viola made in 1610 by G.P. Maggini taken with the FA135mm2.8 without the kenko on a tipod and I'll be able to see the results ! Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben conover Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Ok I looked at the photos, they both look fine. If I can trust my eyes not to get conned by my brain, the A*300mm F4 shot looks clearer. May just be the flash though. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_tong1 Posted July 1, 2006 Author Share Posted July 1, 2006 >Hi Daniel, I want to buy the SMC 135 2.5 because it has the best >reviews of all. So, I'm gonna save for it. I believe the most prestigious lens is A*135 1.8 which is really rare. I had 135mm 2.5 non-SMC Takumura K version and couldn't return it fast enough. I heard that the SMC version is pretty good. >Send me poster size B+W ISO 25 optical prints of the Viola made in >1610 by G.P. Maggini taken with the FA135mm2.8 without the kenko on a >tipod and I'll be able to see the results ! I had a couple of FA135 shots uploaded to http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/fa135_28 Click Original to view full size. The TC is fun to play around even though it does degrade pict quality - which is a cheapie way to double up the focal length. Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben conover Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Great photos Daniel, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_502260 Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 If you are useing a tripod and a flash and closing the lens down a few stops then you will not see a big difference between the two. If you are outside and shooting hand held and if the light isn't perfect then you will see that the 300 is a lot sharper wide open than any combination of a 135 and a 2X teleconverter. Your combination would give you, effectively, a 270mm f/5.6 lens. The 300/4 is a full stop faster and a little longer. In the field the higher shutter speed you get with the 300/4 would give you better results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve graham Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Daniel - I don't think those shots will really tell you anything about the lenses other than that they both work, especially give the differing flash techniques and the different composition. If you want to test their performance then I'd suggest either using both together in the field or printing some test targets and comparing them aperture for aperture. Currently for longer focal lengths I'm using a 80-200 F2.8 & 7 element 2x TC and while the photos are sharp I am noticing a little big of CA being introduced by the TC.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_tong1 Posted July 4, 2006 Author Share Posted July 4, 2006 ******************************************** Jeff Adler , jul 03, 2006; 08:16 p.m. Your combination would give you, effectively, a 270mm f/5.6 lens. The 300/4 is a full stop faster and a little longer. In the field the higher shutter speed you get with the 300/4 would give you better results. *************************************************** Hmm I did specify in the subject that it is a FA135mm 2.8. 2 stops down is around F4. So the two are more the less the same. If you look at the exif of the FA135, it is actually shown as 135mm. In the field, I can use slower shutter speed to get better exposure. I will have my Kenko back this weekend and I will conduct a better test of the same subject with the same lighting. It is interesting just to see to what extent the TC degrade the pict. Whether it is useable or preferable , I will just let people to judge. Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve graham Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Two stops down from F2.8 is F5.6, not F4. As was said earlier the FA135 & 2x together will be the equivalent of a 270mm F5.6 and therefore slightly shorter and a stop slower than a 300mm F4. The camera isn't aware of the effect of the TC which is why its still reporting the aperture as F2.8 because that's what the lens is telling it. If your TC is a 7 element one then it's the same as mine and I've found that to be pretty good, however it does introduce a little CA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_tong1 Posted July 11, 2006 Author Share Posted July 11, 2006 Stephen, I just got the Tamron/Kenko 2x back. Please see http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/test Test of 3 lens and the same 2 subjects . Interesting. It is still better than the earlier sample shots but unscientific though. Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now