• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 VC coming ...


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,428 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 19 June 2017 - 11:08 AM

http://www.canonwatc...-images-leaked/

 

Insane ...


  • Richardma likes this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,832 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 19 June 2017 - 11:47 AM

What would be more insane is if that lens actually would perform ok in the long end..


  • Richardma likes this

#3 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,575 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 19 June 2017 - 12:18 PM

wat

And I thought the 16-300 was insane. All the more remarkable is the fact that it's still f/6.3 at the long end, which is nothing to sneer at @ 400mm.



#4 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,736 posts

Posted 19 June 2017 - 01:08 PM

We'll just have to see how it does in real life!.......



#5 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,832 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 19 June 2017 - 01:30 PM

Meanwhile, in another galaxy (Sigma): also 400mm f6.3 in the long end, and rather quite good:

http://www.lenstip.c...ywu&test_ob=502

 

0.26x at 1.6 meters gives it a slight edge over my EF 70-200mm f4 lens (0.21x at 1.2 meters), so it makes it quite attractive to me.



#6 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,838 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 19 June 2017 - 01:43 PM

That Sigma was one of the pleasant surprises I experienced not long ago at a Sigma event in La Tour de Peilz.

 

But; 100-400 is less complicated than 18-400. A 4× zoom contrary to a 22(!)× zoom



#7 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,832 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 19 June 2017 - 02:37 PM

That Sigma was one of the pleasant surprises I experienced not long ago at a Sigma event in La Tour de Peilz.

 

But; 100-400 is less complicated than 18-400. A 4× zoom contrary to a 22(!)× zoom

That I understand, it was not my purpose to put it straight against the Tamron, which is a super zoom for APS-C and not a telezoom for FF that the Sigma is. Like I said, "in another galaxy" :lol:  



#8 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,575 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 19 June 2017 - 02:45 PM

Oddly enough, I would like to try that lens now (the Tamron). :)



#9 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,838 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 19 June 2017 - 03:32 PM

That I understand, it was not my purpose to put it straight against the Tamron, which is a super zoom for APS-C and not a telezoom for FF that the Sigma is. Like I said, "in another galaxy" :lol:  

 

I only wanted to point out that the Sigma indeed is a nice lens, light and good enough in it's class. I was not expecting that performance. I didn't want to say "those lenses can't be compared".


  • Brightcolours likes this

#10 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,428 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 19 June 2017 - 03:52 PM

Oddly enough, I would like to try that lens now (the Tamron). :)

 

Pervert ;-)


  • Rover likes this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#11 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,838 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 19 June 2017 - 03:54 PM

He's applying for a position in da test-lab  ^_^



#12 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,280 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 19 June 2017 - 09:38 PM

Interesting ? Maybe not much more than their already existing line of superzooms, however a 15-200 would have made much more sense, I found my 15-85 range more handy than that of 18-200 I used for a while.



#13 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,838 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 20 June 2017 - 05:47 AM

Given that you are thinking about buying a 17-55 again, your comment is a little bit nitpicking. Never thought about there's a reason that superzooms - none of them AFAIK - start at 18mm? With two lenses like 8-16 or 10-24 and this 18-400 I could cover a set for lightweight travel.

 

Or in other words: It's not Tamron's fault that Canon uses smaller sensors than other APS-C candidates and therefore would benefit from shorter FL for wide-angle - and on the other side it gives you a "longer" tele equivalence. It's not Tamron's fault and Canon themselves might see reasons to not go for a 22× zoom for DSLRs. It has yet to be proven these 400 mm can be used with satisfying results.

 

Btw., a 1.5× instead of 1.6× sensor would give 18 × 1.5 = 27 ÷ 1.6 = 16.875 



#14 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,832 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 20 June 2017 - 06:20 AM

Given that you are thinking about buying a 17-55 again, your comment is a little bit nitpicking. Never thought about there's a reason that superzooms - none of them AFAIK - start at 18mm? With two lenses like 8-16 or 10-24 and this 18-400 I could cover a set for lightweight travel.

 

Or in other words: It's not Tamron's fault that Canon uses smaller sensors than other APS-C candidates and therefore would benefit from shorter FL for wide-angle - and on the other side it gives you a "longer" tele equivalence. It's not Tamron's fault and Canon themselves might see reasons to not go for a 22× zoom for DSLRs. It has yet to be proven these 400 mm can be used with satisfying results.

 

Btw., a 1.5× instead of 1.6× sensor would give 18 × 1.5 = 27 ÷ 1.6 = 16.875 

And a 1.53x crop sensor?



#15 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,838 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 20 June 2017 - 06:29 AM

Higher math (more than 1 digit on the right side) I leave to people who dedicated their life to the religion of eqivalencism  :lol:



#16 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,832 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 20 June 2017 - 06:33 AM

That puts into question your 16.875 result  :lol:  :ph34r:



#17 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,838 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 20 June 2017 - 06:49 AM

Result and input are two things. One I have to type, the other to read. Or paste...



#18 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,832 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 20 June 2017 - 07:13 AM

So in other words, you don't want to use exact figures in a calculation, but you have no issue reading a too exact result? 

 

18 x 1.53 = 27.54 / 1.61= 17.1

 

Just for optics 17mm looks better than 16mm  :lol:



#19 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,838 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 20 June 2017 - 08:47 AM

Don't you get it?

 

I was making fun out of toni's ridiculous 15-200 idea. And I do agree very much with Rover's "da wide", "da tele" and "da whatever" categories as these are precise enough.

 

Meaning, your equivalence calculatuions with 4 digits behind the comma are the best indicator to "not care about THAT post". I really don't give a sh_t about calculations which imply to show a truth which is simply depending on much other factors without lots of high resolved numbers.



#20 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,736 posts

Posted 20 June 2017 - 08:49 AM

 As we are talking precision focal equivalents, (probably the most tedious process known to man), just for kicks and giggles I decided to resurrect my brain and verify the crop factor figures.....using the Pythagoras's theory (for the diagonal dimension).

 

  The crop factor for the D500 (23.5 X 15.7mm) as 1.53067 so 1.53 is near enough.

 

  For the 80D  (22.3 X 14.9mm)* I have it at 1.6156 so 1.615 will do!

 

 

  *Dimensions from Canon's official site for the 80D. ...

 

  http://www.canon.co....ification.aspx 

 

 

   So, 18 X 1.53067= 27.55206/  1.6156 = 17.05376 mm!


  • Brightcolours likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de