I’m curious how this lens design compares with the conventional alternatives of straight 200-560 mm zoom of similar quality with a similar aperture range (3.5-5.6?) or a straight 200-400 mm f/4 zoom and 1.4× teleconverter.
A conventional 200-560 mm zoom would need fewer elements, and might get better quality from single-stage magnification in the 400 to 560 mm range. It would also be slightly more straightforward to use.
A straight 200-400 mm f/4 zoom could be smaller and lighter when used without a teleconverter, but with the inconvenience of needing to unmount the lens before adding a teleconverter.
Canon’s design requires a long distance between the rear element of the basic 200-400 mm zoom and the sensor, and a teleconverter that works within this space.
Canon’s lens is said to be optically excellent, but then it should be given the price. I would like to find out what an expert on lens design thinks of Canon’s approach.
DxOMark only test one copy of a lens. LensRentals has tested a statistically robust sample of 10 copies of each of the leading 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses, but only at full aperture.LensRentals found the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 ED VR gave the best performance in the outer areas of the frame. If the Nikon VR was best in the outer areas of the frame down to f/8 and f/11, for a lot of photography it would probably be worth trading excellent centre sharpness for good (where you’d probably need to resort to pixel peeping to spot the difference) to gain reasonable rather than poor outer performance.I have the Tamron for my D800, chosen for its image stabilization, but occasionally it loses contact with the D800, and nothing happens when I press the shutter button.I’d pay Nikon’s asking price for a good image-stabilized 24-70mm f/2.8 that worked every time I press the shutter button, because I take most of my shots with it. I’d like to know whether to believe DxOMark’s or LensRentalls’ conclusions.
I agree with the argument against buying full frame lenses for an APS-C body in case of a future upgrade. But ironically I now choose to use a mixed outfit.
When upgrading to a DSLR outfit, I decided on a fresh start. If I had chosen full frame, the set of mid-range, wide-angle and telephoto zooms and an image-stabilized macro lens that I wanted would be heavier than I wanted to carry. Also, 4½ years ago, the full frame options were not that attractive. So I chose an outfit of Nikon D90, 17-55mm f/2.8, 55-200mm, 85mm VR macro and Sigma 8-16mm. Then Nikon launched the D800, and I realized that replacing the D90 and 17-55mm with a D800 and 24-70mm f/2.8 (I chose the Tamron for its image stabilization) would not add much to the weight of my outfit, whilst giving me full frame quality for most of my shots. Meanwhile the 15MPx of the D800 in APS-C format gives better results than my D90 with the APS-C lenses, and probably matches the resolution the lenses can achieve.
I was seriously considering the new 4-section 190CXPRO4 (the old version was too short for me), but I noticed that the 055CXPRO4 offered similar height, weight, features and price, with larger diameter tubes that should give a more rigid tripod unless the joints are inadequate. But I subsequently decided that turning the column 90° would give very little advantage over being able to work without the centre column, or invert it. For real flexibility my Benbo (which is very cumbersome for carrying) allows me to put the centre column at any angle. I can set it parallel to the lens axis and use it for coarse focusing for macro work. (I think the Gitzo Explorer offers this in a tripod that can match the Manfrottos for portability, but at a price.) I am currently considering the Redged TSC-425, which is much lighter and folds rather shorter than the Manfrottos. It can be used without the centre column, or with the column reversed, but the column can’t be angled.
I’m looking for a tripod that is light and compact to carry, but versatile, with features such as tilting and inverting the centre column for close-ups of small flowers, etc.
The Manfrottos look tempting. I would choose a 4-section carbon. The old 190 is shorter than I would like. I see the new 190 and 055 offer almost identical weight and height, but the 055 has larger diameter legs, which I would expect to be more rigid. Does the new 190 have any striking advantages to counter its skinny legs?
How does Lightroom catalogue duplicate copies?
At present, due to lack of space, only half my photos (pairs of RAW + JPEG) are stored on a hard drive within the computer. But I also have the full set on an external hard drive. I don’t have any catalogue system, but the photos are in folders in chronological order sized to match backups onto DVDs.
If I was to get Lightroom, could I easily make it recognise and show which photos are duplicates?
With thanks in advance,Chris Newman