tal_sarih

<p>I am talking about the none-L version :)<br>

And i've already read all the reviews everywhere on web.. I just need your guy's opinion</p>

<p>So I am saving up for a lenses and i'm going to get it soon... I narrowed it down to a couple of lenses.<br>

Tamron 180 - <strong>The good:</strong> Amazing optics, great working distance, controlled flare, ghosting, CA and, awsome bokeh, good focus ring for MF, narrow FoV to controll the background. <strong>The bad: badass AF, a little pricey.</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Sigma 150 - <strong>The good: </strong>Better AF than Tamron 'coz of HSM. Good optics, nice bokeh, good focus ring, good CA ghost and flare, long working distance. <strong>The bad: </strong>MF not as good as Tamron, has focus issues 'coz it's Sigma.</p>

<p>Sigma 180 - <strong>The good:</strong> Same as 150. <strong>The bad:</strong> Focus issues, pricy!</p>

<p>Canon 100 - <strong>The good</strong><strong>:</strong> AMAZING AF! God what a great speed AF... Acurate and fun! Better bokeh than all of these, Great flare, ghosting, CA. very good MF and FTM is always there. <strong>The bad:</strong> Lesser working distance, lesser background blurr due to focal length. Less controlled background. Does not show f/5.6 on camera when working (which is important to not get underexposed images.</p>

<p>Please help me decide which one.. I dont really have a thing for sigma but if you guys says its worth it..<br>

Also, photonet will not let me write <strong>lens</strong>es, only lenses.<br>

Thank you, anyone who replys</p>

<p>Which one of those lenses has better AF speed and noise?</p>

<p>Scott, that is'nt really a problem as if it haunts back and forth I just help it with MF.<br>

Can someone post a Tamron 180mm macro focusing speed video? Just let it snap into focus.. I cant find it anywhere...</p>

<p>Which one of these two lenses has faster, and/or quieter AF?<br /> I found the 100mm to be quite fast, really silent and very acurate. (Ill use the AF to get to the subject, and then fine tune with MF overriding the AF)</p>

<p>Originally posted by Yakim Peled:<br>

....3. My warmest advice to you is to contact Alon Kira and Erez Marom. They are probably Israel's best macro photographers.<br>

__________________________________________________________________________<br>

I am actually in a class in Galitz (if you know that) which one of the shooting session is in Rishon leZion's lake at 5:50 AM with Erez Marom as the teacher. I have asked him and he sais the Tamrom. But he uses only MF for macro, I use the AF to get around the area I want to focus and then I use the FTM to override the AF. Now the question is, in the Tamron, is that possible?<br>

<br /><br>

Also, now I have to ask... Are you from Israel too? I haven't seen anyone from Israel in the time being in here :)</p>

<p>Tal</p>

<p>I am shooting bugs even befor the sun rises, so they are quite frozen... They wont move, so that's not a problem. Today I went to a shooting session in Rishon Le'Zion's lake in Israel (a really nice place) and shot some flys, lady-bug, and a little snail :) Used my friend's 60mm Macro at 1:1, it was realllly close to them but they can't really move...</p>

<p>I want to know mainly if the 100mm is better overall compared to the 180mm. Again, does the 180mm have FTM? I heard it has clutch, can it be used when autofocusing? How is the AF speed and noise compared to the 100mm, on the 180mm? It is mostly gonna be used on a crop sensored body (600D, will upgrade to 650D when it comes out soon [hopefully] with better AF).</p>

<p>I am afraid the 180mm will be too long on a crop, I am not sure about the working distance since it's very far away, which is supose to be a good thing.</p>

<p>I am very concerned about sharpness :)</p>

<p>I would like to know which one has the faster AF, if the Tamron has FTM, which one has better bokeh, etc.<br>

I will be shooting bugs on flowers, and flowers alone.</p>

<p>(For some reason I can't edit my previous post so I'll just post another one).</p>

<p>I am after, only, PURE optical performance. I use MF most of the time. I am (usually) not shooting in the rain, only maybe on slight dropage... Does the 180 has FTM? Does it have slow, fast AF? Noisy, quiet AF? Great optics, poor optics? Better than the 100mm or worse? In what aspect? How is the bokeh compared to eachother?</p>

<p>Which one is better?<br>

Working distance is'nt a problem, and this lenses will only be used to shoot macro. Both are about the same price.</p>

<p>Which one is sharper, and better?</p>

<p>But the problem I am having is not knowing all the lenses Nikon has to offer, and theyr lenses are more expensive and does not fill *all* my needs. Such as:<br>

Canon 300mm f/4 IS, Nikon 300mm f/4.<br>

Canon 400mm f/5.6, Nikon 400mm f/2.8 VR (or f/4, what ever)<br>

I don't know what to do...</p>

<p>I already (almost, only two more classes) finished a course, in the best Photography school in Israel. We learned basicly every photography department.<br>

And you guys are right about the bodies coming and going. Maybe I should stay with my 600D and save up for a 400 f/5.6, and when a 8D or a 6D or what ever is the coming up 7D mkII, I will buy that.<br>

Thanks all :)</p>

<p>Ok guys I think you're missunderstanding me. I am not saying a better cam will give me better pics. Im just saying that a better cam will make my life easyer and make my photography more practical.<br>

The 7D has one dial for shutter on the front, and the aperture dial is a wheel on the back of the camera.<br>

Out of the 15 things? 6 is important.</p>

<p>I know this question has been asked a thouzand times BUT...<br>

Can someone, please, who has a 300 f/4 IS post a focusing speed test on youtube and provide a link? I can't find anything like that, anywhere. And if you have the x1.4 extender, please attach it and post that too.<br />Also, does the x1.4 reduce quallity THAT much that the lenses same quallity as the 100-400? </p>

<p>Ok so quite a few peopole told me to compare 7D and D7k. So I'm gonna do that now.<br>

Focus: 19 (all cross type) vs 39 (9 cross type) which both cover around the same area of focus on the screen.<br>

FPS: 8 vs 6. canon wins. Canon 1-nikon 0<br>

Iso: 7D has lower ISO preformance, about the same as my 600D. D7Khas better boost iso and better preformance. D7k wins. Canon 1 nikon 1<br>

DR: 7D has 2.2 f stops LOWER DR than D7k. Canon 1 Nikon 2.<br>

Low light focus assist: Nikon has it, Canon dosent. Canon 1 Nikon 3<br>

2 wheels vs one. C 1 N 4<br>

Has AF in movies, but movies are lesser than C's. Equal :)<br>

7D has a little bigger viewfinder (1x vs 0.94x on N's.) C 2 N 4<br>

Two card slots. C2 N5<br>

Canon has 1/200 sync speed, Nikon is 1/250. About equal so lets skip.<br>

Canon is ugly, nikon looks better. Basic lenses of Nikon's looks WAY better than Canon's but higher end (L lenses) look about the same so let's give it an equal.<br>

Nikon has better ergonomics than Canon's. C2 N6...<br>

Nikon are optics only, but they buy theyr sensors from Sony.<br>

Canon are a bigger company which makes more than just optics. They ALSO make optics... But they make theyr own sensors<br>

Also, last thing, I am not so sure about, that I read somewhere on the internet. 7D's 1/3 ISO stops are actually 1 stop under (or over) exposed by 1/3 for each stop. So ISO 2000 is actually ISO 3200 with 2/3 stops underexposed... Is this correct?<br>

Are those real reasons to upgrade?<br>

I really dont know... I already got used to canon's stuff, I guess. But whenever I use my friend's D7k I have so much fun......</p>

<p>Nikon has a little focus assist lamp on the front which gives light, allowing better focusing.<br>

I know I need better lenses but I think I love the bodies of nikon better overall...</p>

<p>Les,<br>

I shoot wildlife, macro (flowers), portraits and lighting. I hate my Canon's focusing, little viewfinder, no abillity to focus on low light due to no af assist light, which I do need alot since I do alot of night work.</p>

<p>Hello everybody!<br /> So I just got some cash, around $750, and I was thinking.. I always regreted not buying Nikon.. And now I have some cash. So I thought, should I sell my 600D, 18-55, 55-250 and 50 1.8 and buy the D7000, 18-55, 70-300 and 50 1.8?<br /> Or should I stay with Canon?<br /> I already have some lenses I want to buy and I read reviews on them too, and I go all out on Nikon while knowing nothing about them.<br /> Reasons to upgrade to D7000<br /> 1: Faster FPS <br /> 2: Better ISO <br /> 3: More Dynamic Range<br /> 4: Better AF<br /> 5: Has low light focus assist<br /> 6: Has weather sealing<br /> 7: has 2 wheels instead of one<br /> 8: Has AF in movies<br /> 9: longer battery life<br /> 10: Larger ViewFinder<br /> 11: it has 2 card slots<br /> 12: Has 1/8000, not 1/4000<br /> 13: Sync speed of 1/250, unlike 1/200<br>

14: Lenses, boddies, everything, looks MUCH better than canon's<br>

15: Better Ergonomics<br>

Only reason to think of not to upgrade is Canon is abit cheaper when it comes to lenses, I already did my research on them, I would lose some of the money I spent on the Canon gear since I will sell it second hand, and that I am used to the menues, buttons, etc. Oh and the X1.6 factor, instead of X1.5 'coz I use long telephotos normally...</p>

<p>Thanks everyone :)<br>

I have a couple of questions. <br>

First is, howcome not to buy the 7D?<br>

I don't do too much macro but I enjoy it. I am planing to buy a YN560 soon, so it dosen't concern that budget anyway.<br>

What is beter suited for normal photography? The 35 f/2 or the 28 f/1.8? I am not yet really setteled on what I like to shoot. I like everything exept street photography, but the things I noted up there is what I like the best.<br>

I really want the 7D, but it'll draw me out... And then I have to save up another 1000+ for a 400 5.6...</p>

<p>Hello guys!<br /> I just got $750 and I wana buy some more photography stuff.<br /> So I have a couple of things I would like to consider, and was hoping you guys could help me choose the right thing for me.<br /> So here's the things I am considering of buying:<br /> Canon 50 f/1.4<br /> Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro<br /> Canon 35 f/1.8<br /> 7D (if I sell my 600D and buy them both with the combined money)<br /> Keep the money and save up to buy a 300 f/4 IS or 400 f/5.6.<br /> Right now I have the 55-250, 50 1.8, and the silly 18-55.<br /> Usually I shoot with the 50mm but sometimes I need to step back too much, and I usually shoot at 1.8-2.5 and it's really soft.<br /> I don't have too much time but I am starting to shoot some sports like surfing. The 55-250 is decent at f/8, and the range is like 88-400 on a full frame, so the zoom is quite ok. I really like macro, like REALLY like macro, and all my lenses has really bad MFD, exept the 55-250, which is too long for casual macro.<br /> I hate the 50 f/1.8's focusing noise and speed, and the lack of sharpness at 1.8, so maybe I should go for the 1.4, which at f/1.8 is sharper than the 1.8 at 1.8.</p>

<p>Now... The 7D... My friend has one and I really like it. I like it's focus and viewfinder, and the shutter, and everything...<br /> But that will mean I will have to stay with my current lenses untill I can upgrade again. I am (only) 14, I'm working a couple of times a week, usually I make about $50 a week.<br /> Can anyone give me an advice please, I am lost?</p>

<p>I usually shoot alot of macro (flowers, not bugs), animals from close, portraits, lighting (I think it's called Active Lighting?), wildlife (much less since I live in a city.. Without too big a Zoo or a Safari).<br /> Thanks for everyone who helps :)</p>