10-27-2010, 01:46 PM
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1288186210' post='3818']
It's not that simple. I have used Tamron lenses that showed underexposure (Di 60/2), overexposure (70-300 VC) and some seemed to be spot on (17-50 VC).
That only works if the exposure offset is static. Which is unfortunately not the case with the 70-300 VC (and the Sigma 70-300 OS, it seems), which shows a varying amount of exposure offset with different focal lengths and apertures.
In this case I would call it faulty by design <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
-- Markus
[/quote]
Markus,
have you tried spotmetering as well, by any chance, to see if that gave the correct results?
Kind regards, Wim
It's not that simple. I have used Tamron lenses that showed underexposure (Di 60/2), overexposure (70-300 VC) and some seemed to be spot on (17-50 VC).
That only works if the exposure offset is static. Which is unfortunately not the case with the 70-300 VC (and the Sigma 70-300 OS, it seems), which shows a varying amount of exposure offset with different focal lengths and apertures.
In this case I would call it faulty by design <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
-- Markus
[/quote]
Markus,
have you tried spotmetering as well, by any chance, to see if that gave the correct results?
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....