Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
I don't think I'd like the taste.
I read the web page so kindly provided and ...
Wooolworths said:
I don't think I'd like the taste.
I read the web page so kindly provided and ...
sdbardwick
Storage is cool
I understand the argument, just wondering how one camera can achieve 10 fps with one battery [EN-EL15] while another camera needs two. And not just two batteries. One battery plus one huge battery [EN-EL15 + EN-EL18].
I guess we'll find out.
The crazy priced chargers are OOS at B&H and Adorama. In fact Adorama now has a kit that includes all the parts needed to get the D850 to 9 fps. Only $940. Sigh....
I'm harping on the issue for sure. Sorry. My possible purchase of the D850 would be 9 months from now anyways. Maybe by then decent priced chargers will be available and take some of the bite out of the expense. Or I'll just pick up a D500 instead when they have the "free battery grip" offer/rebate like they had a few months ago. I should have bought one then. $1800 for D500 + grip looks like a steal now.
For all that is holy...just don't point the 600/4 at the sun. The humanity!!!!!!!!!!111111!!!!eleven!!!!!!!!!.
Stereodude
Not really a
What's the worst that could happen? :scratch: https://www.dpreview.com/news/15062...d-camera-gear-they-got-back-after-the-eclipse
I found this bit in the Lensrentals article interesting:
"Unfortunately, these types of damage are considered neglect, as warnings were given out to customers before the solar eclipse. Our LensCap insurance plan, which can be added to rentals for a small nominal fee, does not protect from neglect but is an excellent tool for those who are worried about their rental and want to protect themselves from any accidental damage."
Lenscap+ insurance for that lens is $117 for a week. Not bad really. Covers accidental dropage and whatknot. I could drop the lens through neglect but say (aka: lie) it was accidental and be covered. Solar damage, no coverage. Not criticizing Lensrentals, they are just protecting themselves, but man it would suck if you had to pay the repair cost on a 600/4 lens.
Wonder what the repair cost to replace aperture on that lens is?
"Unfortunately, these types of damage are considered neglect, as warnings were given out to customers before the solar eclipse. Our LensCap insurance plan, which can be added to rentals for a small nominal fee, does not protect from neglect but is an excellent tool for those who are worried about their rental and want to protect themselves from any accidental damage."
Lenscap+ insurance for that lens is $117 for a week. Not bad really. Covers accidental dropage and whatknot. I could drop the lens through neglect but say (aka: lie) it was accidental and be covered. Solar damage, no coverage. Not criticizing Lensrentals, they are just protecting themselves, but man it would suck if you had to pay the repair cost on a 600/4 lens.
Wonder what the repair cost to replace aperture on that lens is?
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
It would be very roughly around $1000 I reckon, assuming that Lens Rentals did as they say and repaired it in-house in three hours, and allowing for the cost of the parts. More at most places.
As for the dork who was specifically warned about the danger, told what not to do, and did it anyway, well, he can count himself lucky.
As for the dork who was specifically warned about the danger, told what not to do, and did it anyway, well, he can count himself lucky.
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
Well, Tannin has finally run out of things to buy. He ordered a 16-35/4 today, along with a Canon G9X II. I feel extremely lucky that no-one has managed to come up with a general-purpose zoom lens clearly superior to the 24-105/4 Mark 1 or he would have got one of those too.
The G9X II is the interesting one: on balance, it was smaller than a G7X and thus better suited as a pocket camera, and has a much bigger sensor than the very cute little red Olympus Tough. Tougher too, probably, insofar as the Olympus (for some unexplained reason) doesn't have a shutter to protect the lens when not in use.
There is a 70-300L on its way to us as a swap for the old Mark 1 100-400. Not quite sure how we are going to work that into the system, but it will be interesting to try it out.
Sanity eventually prevailed as to the ultra-wide. He might have something to say about that shortly.
Meanwhile I have been experimenting with different ways to cook gravel. Only 3,652,481 days to go before we can go to the supermarket and eat real food again!
The G9X II is the interesting one: on balance, it was smaller than a G7X and thus better suited as a pocket camera, and has a much bigger sensor than the very cute little red Olympus Tough. Tougher too, probably, insofar as the Olympus (for some unexplained reason) doesn't have a shutter to protect the lens when not in use.
There is a 70-300L on its way to us as a swap for the old Mark 1 100-400. Not quite sure how we are going to work that into the system, but it will be interesting to try it out.
Sanity eventually prevailed as to the ultra-wide. He might have something to say about that shortly.
Meanwhile I have been experimenting with different ways to cook gravel. Only 3,652,481 days to go before we can go to the supermarket and eat real food again!
More harping on the D850 "+2 fps tax" cause I can't help it...
Thom Hogan mentions the "tax" in his blog here. He even post the exact same link I did for a $39 OEM EN-EL18a battery + charger. That OEM battery is now OOS. He mentions that OEM battery works in the D500 grip, but the D500 doesn't need battery+grip for 10 fps. I wonder if oem batteries will be "DRM'd" in the D850.
Thom Hogan mentions the "tax" in his blog here. He even post the exact same link I did for a $39 OEM EN-EL18a battery + charger. That OEM battery is now OOS. He mentions that OEM battery works in the D500 grip, but the D500 doesn't need battery+grip for 10 fps. I wonder if oem batteries will be "DRM'd" in the D850.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
As Tea says, I thought long and hard about ultra-wides. On the menu were:
Canon 16-35/4. For: superb optics, IS, small and light, takes standard 77mm filters (can be shared with the 100-400, 70-300, and 24-105, plus (via step-up-ring) the 100 macro and 35/1.4), very reasonable price. Against: could be wider.
Canon 16-35/2.8. For: not a lot really. I don't need f/2.8 in an ultra-wide. Against: expensive, heavy, needs a huge and expensive filter that I don't have.
Sigma 12-24 standard. For: really, really wide. Against: optically pretty ordinary, needs a huge filter.
Sigma 12-24/4 Art. For: really, really wide, better optics but still only so-so. Against: no filters, a bit expensive, heavy.
Canon 11-24/4. For: really, really wide, superb optics. Against: no filters, large and heavy, very expensive.
I did seriously consider selling the unlovely 5D II and getting a Sigma 8-16 for the 7D (why did I sell the 10-22 in the first place?) but decided that it was better to go forwards than backwards. So the 16-35/4 it is.
Canon 16-35/4. For: superb optics, IS, small and light, takes standard 77mm filters (can be shared with the 100-400, 70-300, and 24-105, plus (via step-up-ring) the 100 macro and 35/1.4), very reasonable price. Against: could be wider.
Canon 16-35/2.8. For: not a lot really. I don't need f/2.8 in an ultra-wide. Against: expensive, heavy, needs a huge and expensive filter that I don't have.
Sigma 12-24 standard. For: really, really wide. Against: optically pretty ordinary, needs a huge filter.
Sigma 12-24/4 Art. For: really, really wide, better optics but still only so-so. Against: no filters, a bit expensive, heavy.
Canon 11-24/4. For: really, really wide, superb optics. Against: no filters, large and heavy, very expensive.
I did seriously consider selling the unlovely 5D II and getting a Sigma 8-16 for the 7D (why did I sell the 10-22 in the first place?) but decided that it was better to go forwards than backwards. So the 16-35/4 it is.
I didn't know the Canon 16-35/4 was that good. My Nikkor 16-35/4 is "Meh, not horrible, not great" compared to the Canon. I'm Jelly.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Cheers Snowhiker. The Canon 16-35/4 is generally regarded as an outstanding lens, at the time of its release clearly the best full frame UWA zoom. The Mark III 16-35/2.8 came along a bit later and apparently matches it for quality. (But doesn't have IS, is vastly more expensive, and is a lot bigger and heavier.)
Compare to the various normal zooms. I have the Canon 24-105/4 Mark 1, which I have always regarded as perfectly competent but not outstanding in any way. It does nothing badly and most things pretty well. But it's not a lens to fall in love with.
Canon replaced it with a Mark II, which by rights should have been a major event. (Think of the wonderful job they did replacing the 17-40/4 with the 16-35/4 IS, or the 16-35/2.8 II with the Mark III.) But although it improves on the old 24-105 in some small ways, it goes backwards in other small ways and overall is not (in my opinion) any more desirable than the old model - which is also several hundred dollars cheaper. Nor do the Canon 24-70s do much to suggest that they'd be worth spending anything on to upgrade. Like the 24-105s, they are good rather than great.
Over in the third-party range, Tokina make one or two well-performed lenses which are slightly inferior optically, somewhat cheaper, and much heavier. I like Tokina products but no thanks. Sigma's 24-105 is optically much of a muchness, but it is 25% heavier and no cheaper.
Conclusion: keep the one I've already got. Apart from anything else, Tea is getting a bit worried about not being able to afford to buy food anytime this century.
Compare to the various normal zooms. I have the Canon 24-105/4 Mark 1, which I have always regarded as perfectly competent but not outstanding in any way. It does nothing badly and most things pretty well. But it's not a lens to fall in love with.
Canon replaced it with a Mark II, which by rights should have been a major event. (Think of the wonderful job they did replacing the 17-40/4 with the 16-35/4 IS, or the 16-35/2.8 II with the Mark III.) But although it improves on the old 24-105 in some small ways, it goes backwards in other small ways and overall is not (in my opinion) any more desirable than the old model - which is also several hundred dollars cheaper. Nor do the Canon 24-70s do much to suggest that they'd be worth spending anything on to upgrade. Like the 24-105s, they are good rather than great.
Over in the third-party range, Tokina make one or two well-performed lenses which are slightly inferior optically, somewhat cheaper, and much heavier. I like Tokina products but no thanks. Sigma's 24-105 is optically much of a muchness, but it is 25% heavier and no cheaper.
Conclusion: keep the one I've already got. Apart from anything else, Tea is getting a bit worried about not being able to afford to buy food anytime this century.
The 16-35/4 is quite good even at 50MP. Mainly I use the 24-70/4 IS as the normal zoom, but I also have the nice 24-70/2.8 II.
I was not happy with the Sigma 24-105 strong color fringing towards the edges though it is very sharp in the center and midfield. I consider it a people .lens rather than for landscape. Some judicious use of DXO probably cleans it up well enough but Canon and Nikon software ignore 3rd party lenses.
I was not happy with the Sigma 24-105 strong color fringing towards the edges though it is very sharp in the center and midfield. I consider it a people .lens rather than for landscape. Some judicious use of DXO probably cleans it up well enough but Canon and Nikon software ignore 3rd party lenses.
Nikkor UWA lenses need updating.
More ramblings ... because I'm bored.
With the release of Nikon's new 45MP D850 they really need to update there ultra wide zooms and ultra wide primes. And other pro and f/1.4 lenses.
UWA-zooms updates:
The Nikkor 14-24/2.8G was outstanding 10 years ago, but it needs to be updated. I'd love to see an 10-24/4 (no need for 2.8 IMHO) lens with a rear drop in filter kit (NOT the 'gel slot' seen in the Canon 11-24). Lens would come with CPL, 3 ND filters, and maybe a few grad-ND filters. With other/different grad-ND filter kits available. Nikon should grab some of the "3rd party add-on filters" money. Nikon should price a 10-24/4 with drop-in filter set in the mid $3k ($3300-3500) range and it would sell. This would solidify the D850 as THE DSLR landscape camera. An excellent 10-24/4E Nikkor with drop-in filters and a D850 would be the superior choice over the 5DSr & 11-24/4 EF kit.
A 12-24/2.8 UWA-zoom would be an acceptable alternative as well. Better IQ than the Sigma 'A' version a must. Cost $2200.
The 10-24/4 version would be for the serious landscape people and the 12-24/2.8 would be the third piece of the 'f/2.8 holy zoom trinity' set. 24-70/2.8E & 70-200/2.8E are already available.
And finally a GREATLY updated 16-35/4 VR lens for the semi serious people. It needs to be at least as good as the Canon if not better. Cost $1200. Release the updated 16-35/4 with the updated D750 (D760?) camera.
UWA-primes updates:
Nikon needs to destroy the Sigma 14/1.8 Art lens. An optically superior 13/1.8 or 12/2 with excellent coma for astro work would be ideal. They would have the same drop-in filter 'system' as the dream 10-24/4 lens.
A 16/1.8 and 20/1.4 also need to happen as well.
Pro and f/1.4 updates:
200/2.
300/2.8.
200-400/4 w/1.4x TC
135/2.
The 200/2 and 300/2.8 lenses are most certainly being worked on as Nikon has already updated all their other super teles to E versions. The 200-400/4 will probably get the 'E' update as well. Maybe with a built in TC. Probably have to license TC tech from Canon?!? And updated 135/2 lens would round out the short-mid tele range.
24/1.4.
35/1.4.
50/1.4.
85/1.4
These 'standard/pro f/1.4' lenses also need to be updated to 'E' versions. Nikon should update the 50/1.4 first. The Canon 50/1.4 is really long in the tooth. An updated nifty fifty would really highlight the major Canon weakness at 50mm.
Nikon's updated and UPSCALE* 'E' series lens set.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10-24/4E.
12-24/2.8E.
16-35/4E.
12/2E or 13/1.8E.
16/1.8E.
20/1.4E.
24/1.4E.
24-70/2.8E (already available).
28/1.4E (already available).
35/1.4E.
50/1.4E.
70-200/2.8E (already available).
85/1.4E.
105/1.4E (already available).
135/2E.
200/2E (will happen fairly soon).
300/2.8E (will happen soon).
300/4E PF (already available).
200-400/4E (v.likely to be updated).
200-500/5.6E (already available).
400/2.8E (already available).
500/4E (already available).
600/4E (already available).
800/5.6E (already available).
As one can plainly see the TELE end of the updated Nikkor E-Series lens set is nearly complete. Nikon just needs to work on the UWA and WIDE end (and a few f/1.4's) to complete their set.
* Well the 200-500/5.6E and 300/4E PF are not really upscale/high end, but at least the 200-500/5.6 is dirt cheap and the 300/4 PF w/1.4 TC is pretty decent for the price.
More ramblings ... because I'm bored.
With the release of Nikon's new 45MP D850 they really need to update there ultra wide zooms and ultra wide primes. And other pro and f/1.4 lenses.
UWA-zooms updates:
The Nikkor 14-24/2.8G was outstanding 10 years ago, but it needs to be updated. I'd love to see an 10-24/4 (no need for 2.8 IMHO) lens with a rear drop in filter kit (NOT the 'gel slot' seen in the Canon 11-24). Lens would come with CPL, 3 ND filters, and maybe a few grad-ND filters. With other/different grad-ND filter kits available. Nikon should grab some of the "3rd party add-on filters" money. Nikon should price a 10-24/4 with drop-in filter set in the mid $3k ($3300-3500) range and it would sell. This would solidify the D850 as THE DSLR landscape camera. An excellent 10-24/4E Nikkor with drop-in filters and a D850 would be the superior choice over the 5DSr & 11-24/4 EF kit.
A 12-24/2.8 UWA-zoom would be an acceptable alternative as well. Better IQ than the Sigma 'A' version a must. Cost $2200.
The 10-24/4 version would be for the serious landscape people and the 12-24/2.8 would be the third piece of the 'f/2.8 holy zoom trinity' set. 24-70/2.8E & 70-200/2.8E are already available.
And finally a GREATLY updated 16-35/4 VR lens for the semi serious people. It needs to be at least as good as the Canon if not better. Cost $1200. Release the updated 16-35/4 with the updated D750 (D760?) camera.
UWA-primes updates:
Nikon needs to destroy the Sigma 14/1.8 Art lens. An optically superior 13/1.8 or 12/2 with excellent coma for astro work would be ideal. They would have the same drop-in filter 'system' as the dream 10-24/4 lens.
A 16/1.8 and 20/1.4 also need to happen as well.
Pro and f/1.4 updates:
200/2.
300/2.8.
200-400/4 w/1.4x TC
135/2.
The 200/2 and 300/2.8 lenses are most certainly being worked on as Nikon has already updated all their other super teles to E versions. The 200-400/4 will probably get the 'E' update as well. Maybe with a built in TC. Probably have to license TC tech from Canon?!? And updated 135/2 lens would round out the short-mid tele range.
24/1.4.
35/1.4.
50/1.4.
85/1.4
These 'standard/pro f/1.4' lenses also need to be updated to 'E' versions. Nikon should update the 50/1.4 first. The Canon 50/1.4 is really long in the tooth. An updated nifty fifty would really highlight the major Canon weakness at 50mm.
Nikon's updated and UPSCALE* 'E' series lens set.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10-24/4E.
12-24/2.8E.
16-35/4E.
12/2E or 13/1.8E.
16/1.8E.
20/1.4E.
24/1.4E.
24-70/2.8E (already available).
28/1.4E (already available).
35/1.4E.
50/1.4E.
70-200/2.8E (already available).
85/1.4E.
105/1.4E (already available).
135/2E.
200/2E (will happen fairly soon).
300/2.8E (will happen soon).
300/4E PF (already available).
200-400/4E (v.likely to be updated).
200-500/5.6E (already available).
400/2.8E (already available).
500/4E (already available).
600/4E (already available).
800/5.6E (already available).
As one can plainly see the TELE end of the updated Nikkor E-Series lens set is nearly complete. Nikon just needs to work on the UWA and WIDE end (and a few f/1.4's) to complete their set.
* Well the 200-500/5.6E and 300/4E PF are not really upscale/high end, but at least the 200-500/5.6 is dirt cheap and the 300/4 PF w/1.4 TC is pretty decent for the price.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
All this instead of just making a decent 80-400?
Well an 80-400 won't do much for the landscape folks.
An 80-400/5.6E lens that is as good as the Canon would be pricey. And since Nikon, per their CEO ramblings, says that they want to go upscale, they should put out such a lens at a $2400 price point. It would have to be better than the Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 II lens. Probably a good time to do it too as all the cheap/poor bastards already bought the budget 200-500/5.6E lens for $1400.
With the 200-500/5.6E being so cheap, but pretty damn good for the price, I think the market for an undated 80-400/5.6E has been greatly reduced. Perhaps Nikon wants people to buy the $2800 70-200/2.8E & the 200-500/5.6E if they need 200+ mm reach.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
I doubt that Nikon or indeed anyone else could make a better lens than the 100-400 II. In fact it's not really a lens, it's a bleedin' miracle.
Maybe in five years. The 100-400 II is as far ahead of anything else in its class today as the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 was in ultra-wide world a decade ago. Canon did improve on that one ... eventually ... after many years of work and lord only knows how many R&D dollars, and at a mind-blowing price. $3000 for an ultra-wide. Strewth!
But your point about the cheap little 200-500 is a good one. It is apparently way better than anyone would expect for the money. Why would you buy an expensive, mediocre 80-400 when you can have a cheap, decent 200-500?
Landscape folks? Are you kidding? My best, most productive landscape lens is the 100-400. I use it all the time. Love it! The only thing I don't like about it is that it's just slightly too long at the short end, which is why (don't tell Tea!) I just got a 70-300L as well.
(These were all with the old one, mostly with a 1D III or 1D IV. The new 100-400 is even better. I can't wait to do some serious work with it.)
Maybe in five years. The 100-400 II is as far ahead of anything else in its class today as the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 was in ultra-wide world a decade ago. Canon did improve on that one ... eventually ... after many years of work and lord only knows how many R&D dollars, and at a mind-blowing price. $3000 for an ultra-wide. Strewth!
But your point about the cheap little 200-500 is a good one. It is apparently way better than anyone would expect for the money. Why would you buy an expensive, mediocre 80-400 when you can have a cheap, decent 200-500?
Landscape folks? Are you kidding? My best, most productive landscape lens is the 100-400. I use it all the time. Love it! The only thing I don't like about it is that it's just slightly too long at the short end, which is why (don't tell Tea!) I just got a 70-300L as well.
(These were all with the old one, mostly with a 1D III or 1D IV. The new 100-400 is even better. I can't wait to do some serious work with it.)
Nice shots. Thanks for sharing.
Yeah, I've never used it of course, but from all I've read the 100-400 II is amazing. Shame DD doesn't use his that much.
That's why I doubt Nikon will update their 80-400 anytime soon/ever. It would have to be $2500-2800, even if they priced it "aggressively," level of quality to compete/surpass the Canon. And with the $1400 Nikkor 200-500/5.6 being pretty damn decent for the price you'd never have enough "semi-serious amateurs" to pony up the extra cash. Anybody "serious" and up would simply buy the very outstanding Nikkor 70-200/2.8E lens to cover the low end of the scale.
You point regarding the use of a tele for landscape is very valid. In fact, during my trip to Grand Teton NP and especially Bryce Canyon NP, I longed for something with more reach than my 16-35/4 lens. A 24-70 would have been very welcome and even a 70-200 would have some definite use.
Your incoming 100-400 II lens paired with your new 5D4 will produce some fine landscape shots.
I doubt that Nikon or indeed anyone else could make a better lens than the 100-400 II. In fact it's not really a lens, it's a bleedin' miracle.
Maybe in five years. The 100-400 II is as far ahead of anything else in its class today as the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 was in ultra-wide world a decade ago. Canon did improve on that one ... eventually ... after many years of work and lord only knows how many R&D dollars, and at a mind-blowing price. $3000 for an ultra-wide. Strewth!
But your point about the cheap little 200-500 is a good one. It is apparently way better than anyone would expect for the money. Why would you buy an expensive, mediocre 80-400 when you can have a cheap, decent 200-500?
Landscape folks? Are you kidding? My best, most productive landscape lens is the 100-400. I use it all the time. Love it! The only thing I don't like about it is that it's just slightly too long at the short end, which is why (don't tell Tea!) I just got a 70-300L as well.
(These were all with the old one, mostly with a 1D III or 1D IV. The new 100-400 is even better. I can't wait to do some serious work with it.)
Yeah, I've never used it of course, but from all I've read the 100-400 II is amazing. Shame DD doesn't use his that much.
That's why I doubt Nikon will update their 80-400 anytime soon/ever. It would have to be $2500-2800, even if they priced it "aggressively," level of quality to compete/surpass the Canon. And with the $1400 Nikkor 200-500/5.6 being pretty damn decent for the price you'd never have enough "semi-serious amateurs" to pony up the extra cash. Anybody "serious" and up would simply buy the very outstanding Nikkor 70-200/2.8E lens to cover the low end of the scale.
You point regarding the use of a tele for landscape is very valid. In fact, during my trip to Grand Teton NP and especially Bryce Canyon NP, I longed for something with more reach than my 16-35/4 lens. A 24-70 would have been very welcome and even a 70-200 would have some definite use.
Your incoming 100-400 II lens paired with your new 5D4 will produce some fine landscape shots.
Is that a mechanical update to an existing lens like the 24-70 VC II or an entirely new lens? The similar Sigma lens is severely limited by the lack of a tripod mount option. The 80-400 VR-G is in need of an update and the main reason for me not to use the Di50 for certain purposes.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
It will be half the price and half the quality. Just from the lens name we can tell that it's going for the cheap, slow end of the market - f/6.3 is pretty much a red flag that says "we are not really serious about this product". There is some excuse when your product is really long (e.g., a 150-600), but not at 400mm. Will they sell a truckload of them? Or are Nikon users be more likely to go for the 200-500? The latter, I imagine, but I'm only guessing.
I wonder also whether they will release it in Canon mount. Practically no-one in Canonland buys the Sigma one, and now that there are all those thousands and thousands of Canon 100-400 Mark 1s around on the used market, I imagine Sigma's 120-400 sales have dropped to zero. Why would you buy one when you could get a significantly better lens (albeit second-hand) for less money? The other interesting thing in this space is the number of people with the Sigma 150/600 - Canon and Nikon users both, and usually the Sigma rather than the Tamron. That has surely found a sweet spot in the market. (I don't like them myself: I have a rooted objection to f/6/3 lenses, and it is both ridiculously heavy for what it is, and remarkably awkward and difficult to hand-hold for its length and weight. Besides, objective tests demonstrate that a 100-400 II at 400 resized to 600 equivalent is just as good or better. But people love that magic 600 number and buy it anyway.
I wonder also whether they will release it in Canon mount. Practically no-one in Canonland buys the Sigma one, and now that there are all those thousands and thousands of Canon 100-400 Mark 1s around on the used market, I imagine Sigma's 120-400 sales have dropped to zero. Why would you buy one when you could get a significantly better lens (albeit second-hand) for less money? The other interesting thing in this space is the number of people with the Sigma 150/600 - Canon and Nikon users both, and usually the Sigma rather than the Tamron. That has surely found a sweet spot in the market. (I don't like them myself: I have a rooted objection to f/6/3 lenses, and it is both ridiculously heavy for what it is, and remarkably awkward and difficult to hand-hold for its length and weight. Besides, objective tests demonstrate that a 100-400 II at 400 resized to 600 equivalent is just as good or better. But people love that magic 600 number and buy it anyway.
The new Sigma 100-400/6.3 is better than the old Canon 100-400, but it does not have a lens collar option.
At least the Tamron for 2018 has that option.Tamron lenses are indeed not up to Sigma standards lately, but Sigma has been producing some optically better lenses than Nikon or Canon lately.
Sigma compatibility issues with new Canon or Nikon bodies abound, though they have user-upgradeable FW at least.
The 7D3 spec rumors have begun.
That is a CR0. :lol:
The 80-400 VR-G is good on a DX body, but not so good with 36MP or more on FX. It is surely due for an update.
I probably mentioned it before, but I do a lot of panning and stitching with tele lenses like the 100-400 II. The Wimberley Sidekick is a great option for that along with a good ball head.
Normally I'd use either a small or full sized gimbal for wildlife.
ddrueding
Fixture
Leaving for a cruise to Mexico in about 20 hours. Last time I brought a carry-on-sized pelican case full of gear, this time I downsized to a Lowepro Slingshot Edge 150 AW. It can fit quite a lot considering the size; 7DII, 17-40, 100-400II, large clamp/ballhead, portrait grip, and quite a few accessories.
That looks like it would be painful with a full load. What is a large clamp/ballhead? Is there a tripod in your luggage?
ddrueding
Fixture
No tripod. Cruise ships have narrow hallways and stairs, last time I traveled with a 4-segment compact tripod and was still hitting people or getting hung-up on stuff. There are steel railings everywhere, so I'm bringing the following:
Manfrotto 035RL Superclamp
Screw Adapter
Manfrotto MHXPRO-BHQ2 Ballhead
Should be sufficient in most situations, and is tiny. With the wind and boat motion, the tripod needed to be secured at times as well.
ddrueding
Fixture
I don't go on cruises for time off the boat. For me it is a nice air-conditioned room with a changing view and good food only a few steps away. I don't even do events on the ship. Usually only my family and housekeeping see me. The family is cool with it because they have activities and a pool.
I was using the Lowepro Fastpack BP 250 AW during my hikes but it was holding all of my gear, stuff that I rarely used on hiking trails, so now it's just for storage and transportation. I just sling my camera using the Joby Pro Sling Strap and put any accessories I may need in conventional backpack with jacket/rain gear, food/water, etc.
And as far as your cruise vacation goes DD, I think you are actually doing it right. Actually RELAXING. And not trying to complete a long list of itinerary "must dos." Enjoy it. Just don't think about the 600 miles you'll have to put on the bike back home to burn off the fat you gained while eating like a pig at the buffet. Enjoy the gluttony!
Yeah, it makes sense. Several of the women that work for me have young children and just want to relax and be inactive on the PTO.
I'm just the opposite. Normal life is mostly mental and hardly physical.
Of course I like to rest if there is bad light, but if the light is good I'm out there from before sunrise to sunset.
ddrueding
Fixture
I will enjoy the time out once I've caught up on sleep (another 2 decades probably). And when I travel to places to see them, I won't do it on a boat that leaves in 8 hours.
Stereodude
Not really a
So how would you described your management style? Are you a Bill Lumbergh a Peter Gibbons?
I have no idea who that is. I should say direct and indirect reports. None of the male reports currently have young children AFAIK, that's all.
My style is that I avoid asking anything personal about any colleagues, but some people just volunteer information such as their vacation activities.
I don't phone anyone before 8AM or after 6 PM unless it is expected or an emergency. The only info that I want to know is if they are in a corporate office, working from home, working offsite (facility, training, business travel, etc.), or on PTO.
Looks like Nikon is close to announcing a Nikkor 180-400mm f/4 pro zoom with built in 1.4x TC.
Too expensive for normal people but at least they have what Canon users have had for YEARS now.
Too expensive for normal people but at least they have what Canon users have had for YEARS now.
I'm not a fan of the variable ND filters. They use two polarizers that often cause artifacts, especially with wide lenses.