Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: dylee8
Page: <<prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 next>>
Aug 23, 2015 16:45:16   #
55-300


(Download)
Go to
Aug 23, 2015 16:44:13   #
Thanks for all these input.I redo the test with focus close to infinity and the difference is very minor.
photos order - 28-300, 55-300, 150-600

files too large for one post so sending 3 posts.

wdross wrote:
300 mm is always the same, but there are some factors that have to be accounted for. One factor that you would have to account for is that that 300 mm starts at the front of the lens, not at the tripod mount or body. Most lense designs "fold" the light paths to shorten the lense. That means your 300 mm lense is not actually 300 mm long in size. Your 28 - 300 is most likely your physically shortest lense while the 55 - 300 and 150 - 600 are physically much longer. If you set your camera body at 12' and just changed out lenses, and there is a 6" difference where the front of the lense element is, there is already a greater than 4% error that has been introduce into the focal length. That and the that manufacturing range mentioned by Apaflo is more than enough to produce the differences you have noticed. Try setting the front of each lense at 12' (move the tripod), set the lenses at 300 mm, and see if that seems to change things back to a more equal "300 mm" setting. Report back with pictures if you can.
300 mm is always the same, but there are some fact... (show quote)


(Download)
Go to
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.
Go to
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.
Go to
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 ?
Go to
Aug 22, 2015 21:18:25   #
Thank you very much Apaflo.

Explanations like this is what makes UGH so helpful.

Apaflo wrote:
But that refers focal length defined as the distance of the lens from the sensor when focused at infinity.

When not focused at infinity, focal length is actually an "effective focal length". And how that is affected by focus distance depends on the lens design. Up until 25 years or so ago lenses focused closer by moving the entire lens away from the sensor. But now almost all lenses use what is called an Internal Focus design, which has a fixed distance to the sensor and instead moves internal groups of elements in relation to each other.

One effect, most noticed when neither the front or back elements of the lens moves, is that the effective focal length becomes much shorter as the minimum focus distance is approached.

Which is to say, your 300mm lens is close to 300mm when focused on the moon, but it might be only 200mm when focused as close as it can. Or 220, or 250mm... each might be very different! But that is what allows a 12 foot minimum focus distance rather than only 20 feet.

The significance is that there is nothing wrong with any of your lenses in the sense that at one set focus distance they all exhibit different effective focal lengths. It is very much to be expected.
But that refers focal length u defined /u as the... (show quote)
Go to
Aug 22, 2015 19:18:49   #
That can probably explain why. But the Exif also says 300mm.
Apaflo wrote:
That is a good point! The Exif data says 3.3m, 3.5m and 3.7m, so they are all basically shot at 10+ feet and the focal length is probably not close to 300mm for any of them.
Go to
Aug 22, 2015 18:05:52   #
The lenses are focused at around 12 feet, where I placed the camera.

oldtigger wrote:
Were the lenses focused at less than infinity?
It makes a large difference on some lenses
Go to
Aug 22, 2015 18:05:06   #
Yes they were. In fact because the 150-600 is much longer I had to move back 6 inches.
imagemeister wrote:
Were they all taken from exactly the same distance and same aperture ??
Go to
Aug 22, 2015 16:06:26   #
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


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)
Go to
Aug 16, 2015 09:41:37   #
If you don't mind refurbished, the Nikon site currently has a good selection of refurbished FX lenses, at 10% off.
Go to
Aug 10, 2015 06:31:15   #
Thanks all for info. Good reasons so strap will go on lens.

Wife loves cooking no need to tie to stove.
Go to
Aug 9, 2015 20:41:20   #
I just got my Sigma 150-600 C this weekend. It comes with a shoulder strap that can be attached to the lens itself. I don't see any reason I want to put this on. In fact I think it can be in the way and dangerous, especially when mounted to a tripod. Is there anyone who has experience with a lens strap and find it useful?
Go to
Jun 13, 2015 09:46:05   #
Terry Iliff wrote:
I recently bought a Canon 5d as an upgrade from my superzoom Canon sx20 to shoot a wedding for my niece. I am a total amateur, but they are desperate. Test shots on auto with both cameras have me disappointed with the full frame 5d. I was expecting better quality. Am I missing something here?

As many have said here, the camera is just a tool, you need the skills. Its like driving a car with stick shift without knowing manual. You are in for a rough ride.
Also you took a picture of static objects. For weddings you need to capture the right moment in a crowded, bad lighting, and hostile environment. You need a camera with capabilities such as fast frames per second, quick focusing, low lighting, depth of field and other capabilities. Many of these are lacking in a P&S.
Go to
Jun 10, 2015 07:06:33   #
Gene51 wrote:


It could have happened with a new body, or a used body as well. The important takeaway here, is that the warranty is golden. And BTW, I asked about the 90 days, 20 of which was spent at their location, and they said that unofficially if I had a problem with it, they would take care of it at their discretion. Kudos to Nikon service in Melville.


I bought my DX 18-140 refurb from Nikon and very satisfied with it.
For cameras typically saves a few hundred dollars. But if I go new bundled, and assuming the lens is what I want, then the savings kind of offset.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.