All 300mm's not equal
Aug 23, 2015 06:23:13 #
I think you may have some DX and some FX lenses there. On the d7000 the fx will appear closer.
Aug 23, 2015 06:49:01 #
Cannot see exif but whatever camera you are using the focus(fine tune) needs adjusting for all lenses - bet your otger lenses are soft as well.
Aug 23, 2015 07:00:44 #
Leitz
Loc: Solms
imagemeister wrote:
Yes, zooms at that close a distance will vary widely as to FOV
Focus breathing?
Aug 23, 2015 07:33:30 #
mikeg492 wrote:
I think you may have some DX and some FX lenses there. On the d7000 the fx will appear closer.
The lens just has a focal length, and that does not change when used on either a D7000. A 100mm lens designed for a DX camera will have exactly he same field of view as a 100mm lens designed for an FX camera when they are used on the D7000.
Aug 23, 2015 07:53:45 #
I suggest you try a prime 300 on a sturdy tripod for a comparison .
Then again , why 3 " So called " zooms " if you're most interested in a 300 ?
Then again , why 3 " So called " zooms " if you're most interested in a 300 ?
Aug 23, 2015 08:18:57 #
At shutter speeds of 1/40 Or 1/50th seconds blurrienessis is certain iwhen shooting flowers in the slightest wind . Image stabilization does nothing to steady subject matter so even a tripod would be of little use at such slow shutter speeds .
Try as a starter 1/1000th then briefer and briefer until you get what you want . Then too, so long a lens for a flower would not be my choice which would be closer to 100mm , prime macro , often with a strobe mounted on my lens or someone hand holding the strobe at f / stop of f/16 or 22 . The shutter speed then becomes the peak duration of the strobes burst of light which, depending on the power of the flash could be 1/20 thousandths of a second or less .
Try as a starter 1/1000th then briefer and briefer until you get what you want . Then too, so long a lens for a flower would not be my choice which would be closer to 100mm , prime macro , often with a strobe mounted on my lens or someone hand holding the strobe at f / stop of f/16 or 22 . The shutter speed then becomes the peak duration of the strobes burst of light which, depending on the power of the flash could be 1/20 thousandths of a second or less .
Aug 23, 2015 08:30:58 #
donrent wrote:
To me,your new lens needs to go back for a refund........
I had the Nikkor 28-300 AF-S VR. Did not like the soft focus. Made a straight trade for a nearly new 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D and bought a 300mm f/4.5 AI-s in 9+ condition. The 300mm is amazing from f/8 to f/16 and excellent at f/4.5 and f/5.6. I worry about diffraction at f/22.
Aug 23, 2015 09:27:29 #
Many lenses especially newer design shorten the focal length when focus at close distance.
Older lenses (like 30, 40 years ago) generally don't have this kind of characteristic. I call it characteristic because manufacturers don't think that's a problem.
Older lenses (like 30, 40 years ago) generally don't have this kind of characteristic. I call it characteristic because manufacturers don't think that's a problem.
Aug 23, 2015 09:33:21 #
This is just what i needed explained this morning. I recently read an article about the Tamron 18-270 VS the Tamron 70-300. It showed two photos, one with the 18-270 and the other with the 70-300, both at 270mm. The one with the 18-270 was considerably smaller than the one taken with the 70-300.
Aug 23, 2015 10:09:14 #
The exercise was just to compare 3 lenses, all at 300. I don't have a prime lens. They were all on tripods with the same distance.
Bill gomberg wrote:
I suggest you try a prime 300 on a sturdy tripod for a comparison .
Then again , why 3 " So called " zooms " if you're most interested in a 300 ?
Then again , why 3 " So called " zooms " if you're most interested in a 300 ?
Aug 23, 2015 10:11:53 #
yes the 55-300 is DX. The other 2 are FX. They were all mounted on a DX camera. But I don't believe that makes any differences as far as focal length goes.
mikeg492 wrote:
I think you may have some DX and some FX lenses there. On the d7000 the fx will appear closer.
Aug 23, 2015 10:13:01 #
We must have seen the same article. Thats why I did the test.
Tom Kelley wrote:
This is just what i needed explained this morning. I recently read an article about the Tamron 18-270 VS the Tamron 70-300. It showed two photos, one with the 18-270 and the other with the 70-300, both at 270mm. The one with the 18-270 was considerably smaller than the one taken with the 70-300.
Aug 23, 2015 10:32:50 #
dylee8 wrote:
We must have seen the same article. Thats why I did the test.
This forum is really good, you can most always find someone who has some answer to your questions and has had the same experiences as you. Right now, I'm trying to find a lens to compliment my Sigma 150-600 C on my T3i. The Sigma 50-150 2.8 (used) sounds attractive, but I'm thinking i may need just a little overlap, so maybe the Sigma 18-270. The Canon 18-200 is also something I've looked at.
The 18-270 sounds pretty good, other than some issues with the zoom ring that some have mentioned and being 6.3 on the long end. Anyone with any suggestions?
Aug 23, 2015 10:39:05 #
dylee8 wrote:
I got my new Nikon 28-300mm lens. As a comparison I took my other 2 lenses with 300mm - Nikon 55-300, and Sigma 150-600, and took the 3 pictures, all at 300mm, mounted on my D7000.
The pictures here, all uncropped, show that even all at 300mm, taken from the same spot, they zoomed differently.
First picture 28-300, second 55-300, third 150-600
Did I do something wrong? Or is there a more complicated way to convert focal length to zoom factor? Thanks
The pictures here, all uncropped, show that even all at 300mm, taken from the same spot, they zoomed differently.
First picture 28-300, second 55-300, third 150-600
Did I do something wrong? Or is there a more complicated way to convert focal length to zoom factor? Thanks
dylee8, I believe the 28-300mm is really an FX lens (I also have this lens for my D750). in your 1st pix you are using an FX lens on a DX D7000 so the images will appear smaller I think. Not sure about this but I do know that an FX lens on an FX body will give a different look than the same FX lens on a DX body. -FiddleMaker
Aug 23, 2015 10:44:50 #
It's what they called focus breathing. If you do the test again and with far away subject so the lenses are basically focus at infinity then you will see very little differences. Mordern lenses with internal focusing /zoom tend to shorten their focal length a lot when focus at close distance but each lens does it with a different amount so you see the big differences.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.