A few days ago Caranx wrote:
I've been trying to figure this one out but I can't come up with a solution. I searched the FAQ section but didnt find any related info. If I missed it, please point me in the right direction.
Here's the problem : Both of these images of a picture frame with a canvas mat were taken on a Nikon D200, tripod mounted. The only thing changed was the lens. A Tamron 18-270 3.5-6.3 Di ll VC was used at 270mm for Image A and a Nikon AF-S 55-200 1:4-5.6 G ED VR (kit lens) was used at 200mm for Image B. Why then, do I get a closer view with the Nikon? I would think the Tamron would give me the more magnified image since it has "70mm more reach"...but apparently it's not so. Can someone on the forum help explain this? Thanks in advance

Over the weekend, I asked Tamron for an explanation and received a reply this morning. I posted it on the end of the original post. Here is a link to the thread and the answer...

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-39665-6.html

For what it's worth...

I have the Tamron 18-270 also and the Canon 18-55 & 55 - 250 kit lenses. At 18mm & about 5 feet, both lenses take the same picture (from a tripod).

At 250mm vs 270mm, the 250 is much closer (zoomed in)as your pics show. I took a pic at 270 with the Tamron and then switched to the Canon 250 and backed out until I had the same size pic as the 270. The Canon said 135mm (from about 6').

Pictures of the full "super" moon last year with 250mm vs this year with 270mm show that the 270mm produces a moon that is really close to 8% bigger which is what the difference between 250 & 270 should be.

Tamron, in their literature throws the word "macro" around a lot (not saying that the 18-270 is a macro) but with a min focal distance of 19.3 inches I thought that at 20" and 270mm I could probably see inside a bug...

The Canon 55-250mm has a min focusing distance of 3.6' so from 44", I took a pic of a yard stick with the Tamron at 270. Got 4-3/8" top of frame to bottom. The get the same 4-3/8" with the Canon, it was set at 116mm - a very long way from 270. With the Canon 250mm lens set at 250mm, the pic only shows 2-1/4" - almost 1/2 the size of the Tamron set at 270mm.

I'm going to ask Tamron for a comment and will report if I get any reply...

Tom[/quote]

Very interesting data from all your testing Tom. Well done! It seems that there has to be some compromise when a zoom lens is designed. A 100-210mm lens would most likely not show as much variation as an 18-300mm superzoom. The physics involved wont allow you to get everything without giving up something.

BTW, I think Nikon just released such a beast: An 18-300mm DX lens. (so 300/18 = 16.7x) If any of you aquire this beauty, let us know about its behavior

Looking forward to reading Tamron's reply![/quote]

So I sent Tamron a msg over the weekend and a reply was waiting for me this morning. Not bad service... I'm not sure I totally undertand the answer but at least I got one... I assume that the translation is that in a lens that goes from 18mm to 270mm, this is as good as it gets...

Here's the reply:

"Hi Tom,
This is not abnormal, because the lens's focal length is based on an infinite shooting distance and its angle of view during this sort of shooting at an infinite distance is the same as other telephoto lenses.

If internal focus (IF) is used as the wide optical system, then the shorter the shooting distance is, the lower the magnification for telephoto shooting becomes. The Tamron all-in-one zoom lens uses the IF method to reduce the shortest shooting distance. As the focal length includes wide angle, close-distance shooting at the telephoto end creates a wider angle of view than other telephoto lenses when the magnification is reduced."

Hope this makes sense to someone...

Tom

For what ir's worth...

I have the Tamron 18-270 also and the Canon 18-55 & 55 - 250 kit lenses. At 18mm & about 5 feet, both lenses take the same picture (from a tripod).

At 250mm vs 270mm, the 250 is much closer (zoomed in)as your pics show. I took a pic at 270 with the Tamron and then switched to the Canon 250 and backed out until I had the same size pic as the 270. The Canon said 135mm (from about 6').

Pictures of the full "super" moon last year with 250mm vs this year with 270mm show that the 270mm produces a moon that is really close to 8% bigger which is what the difference between 250 & 270 should be.

Tamron, in their literature throws the word "macro" around a lot (not saying that the 18-270 is a macro) but with a min focal distance of 19.3 inches I thought that at 20" and 270mm I could probably see inside a bug...

The Canon 55-250mm has a min focusing distance of 3.6' so from 44", I took a pic of a yard stick with the Tamron at 270. Got 4-3/8" top of frame to bottom. The get the same 4-3/8" with the Canon, it was set at 116mm - a very long way from 270. With the Canon 250mm lens set at 250mm, the pic only shows 2-1/4" - almost 1/2 the size of the Tamron set at 270mm.

I'm going to ask Tamron for a comment and will report if I get any reply...

Tom

In the first pic, the hallway and vertical lines in the walls lead your eyes right up to the "light at the end of the tunnel"... That's interesting.

In the second, the shadows from the 4 steps in the foreground grab your eyes and run them right off the pic to the right and the buildings are so small that you have to look to find them.

I think that if you had zoomed in to cut off the 4 steps in the foreground you would do away with the very strong horizontal shadow lines and make the building a lot bigger and more interesting and probably framed by the left edge of the tree.

Try to use the natural lines to lead your eyes to the interesting subject of the pic... Try cropping the foreground steps and some of the right side of the pic out and see what you think...

Just my opinion... Tom

You might ask Tilde531 if "Lifestyle Photography" is just a company name, since it's used as a watermark.

Otherwise it would seem that "lifestyle" would be defined as a subject doing, or being with, what they enjoy most in life. Their dog(s), their cat(s), their custom car, their motorcycle, their hunting rifle, their swimming pool, their completed needle-point projects, whatever. A subject and their "prop(s)" to reveal what they enjoy most in life - unless it's something like a hot naked Asian girl (or boy in some cases, I guess). :shock:[/quote]

So all I have to do is take pictures of Golf, & Eating and Drinking - should just about cover it all... :-)

Thanks for the reply...

(I'll PM Tilde531)

I just noticed that Tilde531's photos have a watermark that says "Lifestyle Photography" (great photos btw) and it started me wondering just what the subject of a "Lifestyle" photo might be?

The first thought that came to my mind was of a person lounging at pool side with a margarita in their hand (wishfull thinking).

As Realtors in a second home market, we have decided to focus our marketing around the "La Quinta Lifestyle" which we have enjoyed for 12 years and for most everyone else is slow paced and relaxed.

What would you think the subject of a "Lifestyle" photo would be?

Thanks,

Tom

The Digital camera can be totally overwhelming at first. I started to "Google" topics on Youtube and almost eveything is covered. While in Youtube, I discovered Karl Taylor a professional from the Channel Islands. He offers a basic online course from his website for free and then has several more advanced DVDs which are very good. Try

http://www.karltaylorphotography.com.

Another great place to learn stuff as mentioned is AdaromaTV. The have hundreds of videos on all kinds of topics.

http://www.adorama.com/alc/category/AdoramaTV

When I first got my camera, I read the manual but there was so much info, I found it frustrating as I had to keep going back through it because I'd get lost with the terminology...

Good Luck,
Tom

The 1st Photo is as sharp as the birds beek...

Here are some 4 legged "critters" - although I can't call them "Critters" - they are simply gorgeous animals... They were courtesy of Anhauser Busch for the 2010 Coachella Fest Music Festival. They were delivering beer to the fans. This day they came into "Old Town" La Quinta, California to sample the desert lifestyle. Pretty spectacular!

"This is a pretty cool place..."


"There's beer back there..."


"Are we there yet?"


"Ya know, I'm running this show..."

I also have a T2i and I haven't noticed any issues with light. I haven't tried a lot of low light photos but I just took some in my office with just an overhead light on and they came out fine - the VC works very well. At 270mm it steps down to f6.3. At f6.3 and 3200 iso and low light, the TV was 1/40 and produced a clear bright pic of the closed window shutters. Remember to remove the Polarizing filter if you have one...

Ditto coco1964... I just got the Tamron 18-270mm and find it as good if not better than the 2 canon kit lenses it replaced... And there is a $50 rebate and if you buy it from B&H and sign up to use "Bill Me Later" (6 months no interest), B&H gives you another $20 off. Tom

[quote=MT Shooter]

I have a Canon T2i with 18mp and a crop sensor that is 22.3mm x 14.9mm or 332.27 sq mm and I haven't had any focus or steadiness issues. The Nikon's with 36mp are full frame 36mm x 24mm or 864 sq mm which is 2 times the mp in 2.59 times the area. Shouldn't be any more of a problem then my Canon...

Hows that - a Canon user defending Nikon?

Tom

That second picture really has some "pop" - it is really outstanding. How many exposures do you do and what is the total range in f-stops?

I'm a realtor in the Palm Springs area and I have not seen a HDR photo that I liked. At first I didn't know what was rong with those "dirty" (smudged) pictures and then I found out that agents were actually paying a hefty premium to make them look that way. We use a professional that uses multiple flashes. On somebodys recomendation we tried a different pro photographer and he did a 7 exposure set for each picture and assured me that they would be far superior to the flash type - after all, he'd been in the business for 30+ years and had been taking pics all over the world... I was encouraged but to no avail. The pics were still over cooked and had plenty of the HDR "smudge" to them.

Your shot above is even considerably better than your first. Nice job!

Tom

B - T2i

Jim, Is that how you would make a B&W pic with a "colored" object in it? Put a color version over the B&W version and erase all the color except the object?

"Consistency"! is the word. I have owned a auto dealership and am now a Realtor. Both businesses rely on marketing to survive and what I've learned over the years is that marketing is a lot like fishing. When you throw your bate out into the lake, there needs to be a hungry fish nearby. If you keep throwing out your bate, some day a hungry fish will be there. If we develope the best real estate marketing postcard and send it to you the day after you moved into your new house, it will go right into the trash because you're not "hungry". If you keep getting a postcard from us on a regular basis, our name or logo will start to become embedded into your mind and when you do think about a realtor hopefully we will come to mind. My point is "consistency"! One mailing isn't going to get you much. Consistent mailings will.

Tom