My names Mike and I'm addicted, or I must be flippin mad

[J-see]

The Dock is a major consideration,although i do believe you can get too fanatical about it,problems will always arise due to the distance you set it at and the focal length,distance to subject,focus breathing,so many variants but yes multi settings should help to rectify these.


I should know the Donkey and the stone story but i cant think of it.

I don't think the issue with fine-tuning different focal lengths is a matter of being fanatic but one of being unaware how much difference there can be. I used to tune my lens at one length and that was it. It's not that I had any other choice. It's only when I accidentally tuned my lens at 150mm (I forgot to change the focal length, old age and such) and directly repeated the process at 600mm, I noticed how much difference there is between both ends. From something like +6 to -6 if I remember well. It means if I tune her at 600mm, at 150mm she is now tuned 12 stops into the wrong direction, at 400mm about six. That's disastrous, forcing me to either mainly use one focal length and stick to that or note down the values and manually adjust them each time.

About the donkey:

I don't know if it is an English expression too but here it goes someone like "A donkey never hits the same stone twice."

Only an .... does.

 

[mikew_RIP]

I didn't realize the weight issue with the new Nikon. I looked it up and you are certainly right, the Nikon will be almost a pound heavier than the Tamron. The older 300mm f/4 with 1.4x is about a pound lighter than the Tammy, and I REALLY notice the difference. The new 300mm f/4 is crazy light, but also leaves one's pocketbook significantly lighter, as well.

Maybe the Tamron folks have worked the bugs out and the latest copies of the 150-600 will have less focus lock up problems. I don't know what I would do in your situation, Mike, but you really do need a nice, long lens since you enjoy bird photography so much.

The nikon 200-500 is a consideration even though its heavier,@ 100mm shorter focal length hand holding would have the advantage,if you could get sharper images most of the time it would help cropping,not looked at the specs but it could have a better balance at full zoom,plus it would work with my V2,will need to see one and handle it first,this criteria could be applied to the sigma 50-500,although its on FX previous experience leads me to think any thing over 400mm would be workable.
I will probably have a bit more thinking time unless something S/H shows up as i only have £700 in the toy fund at the moment.

 

[mikew_RIP]

I don't think the issue with fine-tuning different focal lengths is a matter of being fanatic but one of being unaware how much difference there can be. I used to tune my lens at one length and that was it. It's not that I had any other choice. It's only when I accidentally tuned my lens at 150mm (I forgot to change the focal length, old age and such) and directly repeated the process at 600mm, I noticed how much difference there is between both ends. From something like +6 to -6 if I remember well. It means if I tune her at 600mm, at 150mm she is now tuned 12 stops into the wrong direction, at 400mm about six. That's disastrous, forcing me to either mainly use one focal length and stick to that or note down the values and manually adjust them each time.

About the donkey:

I don't know if it is an English expression too but here it goes someone like "A donkey never hits the same stone twice."

Only an .... does.

You could have put Ass

 

[mikew_RIP]

^ What he said. I must add that tuning the Sigma with the dock is not easy nor straightforward. In particular, you cannot put a ruler at infinity to see whether you have front or back focus. It requires a fair amount of trial and error, and every time you have to take the lens off the camera, put it into the dock and change one parameter. Needs patience.

Also, I noticed that at 600 mm and the distance of 15 m, my lens was insensitive to fine tuning. Whatever the value I put through the dock, I got the same result - a slight front focus. At other distances/focal lengths I could see the effect of changing lens parameters, just not at 600 mm / 15 m.

If i take long enough to decide my dealer may get a S/H sigma in when the Nikons arrive then i can borrow it for a play.

 

[Vincent]

I find them too heavy now,i had trouble with the last one but i want a Tamron 150-600,the D750 is crying out for a long lens and i only fancy the Tamron,i should have gone down Dons road and titled the thread.

My names Mike and I'm addicted

Yes you are addicted and mad.

The discussion I did not see yet here is:

if your picture is not good, you are not close enough

.
You do not always NEED longer glass, you might get more from getting closer and using the 105.

Now I`m not saying it is easy or not time consuming, but it is worth it. Less air between you and your subject is important.

 

[Blacktop]

Yes you are addicted and mad.

The discussion I did not see yet here is: .
You do not always NEED longer glass, you might get more from getting closer and using the 105.

Now I`m not saying it is easy or not time consuming, but it is worth it. Less air between you and your subject is important.

That works great with static objects. However, unless I grow wings I can't really get much closer to things that fly about. Most people don't buy long lenses to shoot churches from a distance.
My 70-300mm was just barely enough on my DX 7100 to shoot BIF. There is not much I can do with that lens now on my D750 when it comes to those sort of shots. As a matter a fact I had not yet gotten close enough to any bird with it yet, except for ducks at the pond.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

That works great with static objects. However, unless I grow wings I can't really get much closer to things that fly about. Most people don't buy long lenses to shoot churches from a distance.
My 70-300mm was just barely enough on my DX 7100 to shoot BIF. There is not much I can do with that lens now on my D750 when it comes to those sort of shots. As a matter a fact I had not yet gotten close enough to any bird with it yet, except for ducks at the pond.

Is the 70-300 a FX lens?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blacktop]

Is the 70-300 a FX lens?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it is. It's the same one you have.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

Yes, it is. It's the same one you have.

I had never even thought about it before. Now I have 2 FX lenses. The 70-300 and my 24-120 F4. If I ever do decide to move up to a FX I will have a start on glass

 

[Blacktop]

I had never even thought about it before. Now I have 2 FX lenses. The 70-300 and my 24-120 F4. If I ever do decide to move up to a FX I will have a start on glass

I thought you knew. Now may I recommend the D750?
Isn't your 40mm Macro an FX lens?

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

I thought you knew. Now may I recommend the D750?

I actually think that is the only FX camera that could change my mind about getting a FX. Really don't have a need or really a want right now for one though.

 

[Blacktop]

I actually think that is the only FX camera that could change my mind about getting a FX. Really don't have a need or really a want right now for one though.

That is exactly what I said a week before I ordered one. LOL! If I ever get to visit you in Bama, I'll let you use it with your own SD card that you can take home and process.

 

[mikew_RIP]

Yes you are addicted and mad.

The discussion I did not see yet here is: .
You do not always NEED longer glass, you might get more from getting closer and using the 105.

Now I`m not saying it is easy or not time consuming, but it is worth it. Less air between you and your subject is important.

Sorry but what your saying is not practical,there are many ways to do bird photography and in the last nearly 40 years i have tried most,short lenses are no good at all except very odd occasions,most of my hide work was done in pre digital days when most of us could just about afford a 300mm with out going to mirror lenses,this means i have a full understanding of subject size V distance V focal length,at a feeding station with the birds maybe 10 or 12ft away 400mm is needed to get a decent size image of something the size of a Blue tit.

Now i dont have the facility's for hide work so most of my images are taken stalking,we are not talking Ducks and Geese but birds smaller than a ducks head,if most people can get within 25ft of there subject they are doing well,thats why most bird photographers stalk with 500-600mm lenses,i will agree a long lens should not be used as a distant shooting tool for the reasons you say,they should be used for short range high magnification of small targets.

The reason you have not seen that discussion is its a pointless one as most bird photographers have the desire to get as close as they can so long as it has no detrimental affect on there subjects well being.

 

[Vincent]

Sorry but what your saying is not practical,there are many ways to do bird photography and in the last nearly 40 years i have tried most,short lenses are no good at all except very odd occasions,most of my hide work was done in pre digital days when most of us could just about afford a 300mm with out going to mirror lenses,this means i have a full understanding of subject size V distance V focal length,at a feeding station with the birds maybe 10 or 12ft away 400mm is needed to get a decent size image of something the size of a Blue tit.

Now i dont have the facility's for hide work so most of my images are taken stalking,we are not talking Ducks and Geese but birds smaller than a ducks head,if most people can get within 25ft of there subject they are doing well,thats why most bird photographers stalk with 500-600mm lenses,i will agree a long lens should not be used as a distant shooting tool for the reasons you say,they should be used for short range high magnification of small targets.

The reason you have not seen that discussion is its a pointless one as most bird photographers have the desire to get as close as they can so long as it has no detrimental affect on there subjects well being.

This is the kind of reaction I wanted to see.

As you state:
We all want to be closer
It is not practical

I also prefer 600mm over luring for example, and long lenses are more practical in general. Then how many times do you have the bird closer then the minimum focussing distance of your long glass? Happens regularly to me, not often enough though to stop with long glass.

Outsmarting your subject can be a kick greater then having spend a lot of money. Getting close is very important. Does it eliminate the need for long glass? I also doubt it, but it is a point to consider when going for small birds.

Personally, I do not have the time nor the patience to work close, nor the money for modern long glass (2,5 years saving is budgetted though.)

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[mikew_RIP]

The lenses of today mostly focus close enough for all situations,the problem used to be with the film lenses something like the Nikon 300f4.5 would not focus close enough to get a decent sized image of a small bird at a feeding station,this meant adding a small extension tube but losing distance focusing if any thing happened further away,in turn the Tamron 300mm sp f5.6 became popular because of its close focusing ability,some even went with the Tamron 500 sp mirror lens because of its close focus,you just had to have a background that helped reduce the dough-nut bokeh.
My first choice would always be to get close one way or another but when a goldfinch is singing at the top of a 40-50ft tree it aint happening.

 

[10 Gauge]

I don't think the issue with fine-tuning different focal lengths is a matter of being fanatic but one of being unaware how much difference there can be. I used to tune my lens at one length and that was it. It's not that I had any other choice. It's only when I accidentally tuned my lens at 150mm (I forgot to change the focal length, old age and such) and directly repeated the process at 600mm, I noticed how much difference there is between both ends. From something like +6 to -6 if I remember well. It means if I tune her at 600mm, at 150mm she is now tuned 12 stops into the wrong direction, at 400mm about six. That's disastrous, forcing me to either mainly use one focal length and stick to that or note down the values and manually adjust them each time.

About the donkey:

I don't know if it is an English expression too but here it goes someone like "A donkey never hits the same stone twice."

Only an .... does.

Exactly why I dropped the Tamron like a sack of crap. +20 at 600mm and 0 at 150mm. It was basically a 600mm prime to me because it was too much of a PITA to keep adjusting the fine tune for other focal lengths.

I love my Sigma and I'm certain at f/8 it's sharper than my Tamron was at any focal length. I'm very well pleased with the Sigma!

Sent from my HTC One M8 using Tapatalk

 

[ScottinPollock]

Exactly why I dropped the Tamron like a sack of crap. +20 at 600mm and 0 at 150mm.

Nikon has always had this nasty habit of half-implmenting things. The camera knows what focal length the lens is at; why can't the camera have multiple points of correction for zooms?

 

[10 Gauge]

Oh I agree. If Nikon wanted to really lead the pack, they'd build a multiple focal length fine tune editor right in to the body so it would work with all lenses like the current fine tine menu does.

 

[Vincent]

...My first choice would always be to get close one way or another but when a goldfinch is singing at the top of a 40-50ft tree it aint happening.

As you might have noticed I'm trying to convince people not to buy. This is part of my own GAS treatement.

1) You might be able to do enough with what you have
2) You might be able to have a different approach
3) You might be able to exclude subjects (for which you need the new equipment)

On my own decision (I have a lot of material, my approach can improve and I really want to photograph skittish small animals):
1) At this moment with a 70-300 + 500 + tc 1.4 I find it sufficient to cover most situations.
2) However I will go to the 300 f4E (portability and quality together) + 600mm f4 to really spend more time on photography, but this is for the future.
3) More flexible 150-600mm or 200-500mm, seems still limited in portability and not optimal quality for really far reach (vs 600mm + TC1.4).

Photography forums are full with people that are mad when it concerns spending on photography and many are addicts.

 

[mikew_RIP]

As you might have noticed I'm trying to convince people not to buy. This is part of my own GAS treatement.

1) You might be able to do enough with what you have
2) You might be able to have a different approach
3) You might be able to exclude subjects (for which you need the new equipment)

On my own decision (I have a lot of material, my approach can improve and I really want to photograph skittish small animals):
1) At this moment with a 70-300 + 500 + tc 1.4 I find it sufficient to cover most situations.
2) However I will go to the 300 f4E (portability and quality together) + 600mm f4 to really spend more time on photography, but this is for the future.
3) More flexible 150-600mm or 200-500mm, seems still limited in portability and not optimal quality for really far reach (vs 600mm + TC1.4).

Photography forums are full with people that are mad when it concerns spending on photography and many are addicts.

If you look in my signature ime not over stocked with gear ,i buy to do a job,with the exception of the D750 i bought that to scratch an itch,and wow was it worth it