63 replies to this topic

[bruceterrill]

Hi James,

Certainly impressive. I have never seen these octo's in real life, but
the depth of field at F13 gives enough of the animal in focus and
isolates it from the background as well-- I like it a lot...

So as to not look completely stupid, could you give an idea as to the size of the occy?

I, for one, am certainly looking forward to your full report. I'm getting my cash ready...


Bruce...

[james]

Hi Bruce,

With arms curled up the wonderpus is about 5" across.

Cheers
James

[bruceterrill]

Well James,
That leaves us with the million dollar question...and I believe that you
might be the only person on the planet to be able to answer...???

Head to head, which lens would you keep for yourself, the Big Tamron or the Nikkor 70-180 Micro ???
I don't know that anyone else has owned and used both lenses in the field, or under water, before?
Is it the new kid on the block with his big 2.8 min aperture or the legendary old timer from Nikkor?

Bruce...

[james]

Bruce,

I would choose the Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f2.8 - but that's because I like to use AF and the * button. The Nikkor is a bit slow to use with AF but works great with manual focus. Also, the Nikkor does better than 1:1 with the Nikon diopter. The best you can do w/ the Tamron on a FF camera is 1:1.1 or so.

Cheers
James

[bmyates]

...The best you can do w/ the Tamron on a FF camera is 1:1.1 or so.

Is that true even if you use a wet diopter, such as one of Seacam's?

[james]

No, the 1:1.1 is the lens, + 500D tested in air. See farther up in this post for the test photos.

Cheers
James

[Arnon_Ayal]

Any Idea if this lens will fit in Ikelite's ports?

[james]

What's the maximum size of the inside of the Ike port and how fat can the lens be at the zoom gear location?

Cheers
James

[bruceterrill]

Hi james,

Is the big Tamron an internal zooming lens?
I know that it is internally focusing, but does it's length remain unchanged
while zooming through the focal 'powers'??

Respect,
Bruce...

[james]

Yes.

[Arnon_Ayal]

What's the maximum size of the inside of the Ike port and how fat can the lens be at the zoom gear location?

Cheers
James

After more checks seems that the sad answer is not
From Ike's site: Maximum lens diameter is limited to 8.4cm (3.3").
The max diameter of the Tamron is bigger: 90mm (3.5").

[james]

The lens review has been posted on DPreview.com:

http://www.dpreview....70-200_2p8_c16/

Cheers
James

[bmyates]

The lens review has been posted on DPreview.com:

http://www.dpreview....70-200_2p8_c16/

From the review, it sounds like it can produce excellent images (at apertures other than wide open), but that its weakness is in AF accuracy/speed. While that might be a problem for sports photography, it's not a fatal flaw for uw use. However, I would think you'd want to be able to manually focus it, i.e., have a MF ring to tweak the focus on macro subjects, rather than using it in AF mode alone. Is that a reasonable conclusion to draw from the review, James?

(Oh, and where's YOUR review!? )

Edited by bmyates, 16 June 2008 - 07:16 AM.

[james]

Hi Bruce,

I found the AF adequate when used on my 1D series body. It wasn't any worse than the 100mm macro lens for example. I shot the lens primarily at f11-f13 and found it to be extremely sharp, so my experience is similar to the reviewer.

The lens has the lame Tamron AF/MF shift collar, so you can't shoot it in AF with full time manual over-ride. It's not a USM lens - Meaning you're stuck shooting it in one or the other. I shot it in AF using the * button for focus. I didn't feel that MF was necessary, but if switching is a requirement, then I recommend trying the Sigma which I think operates as a true USM lens.

Cheers
James

[bmyates]

...The lens has the lame Tamron AF/MF shift collar, so you can't shoot it in AF with full time manual over-ride. It's not a USM lens - Meaning you're stuck shooting it in one or the other...

So with the * button for AF, you just have to use the "move back and forth slightly" method of fine tuning? That's OK - that's what I do a lot anyway! That would also eliminate the need/cost of having a MF ring...hmmm

I haven't looked at the Sigma - if it's comparable in other ways, but allows MF override, that would certainly be a consideration...can I ask why you chose the Tamron over the Sigma?

Edited by bmyates, 16 June 2008 - 08:21 AM.

[james]

Hi Bruce,

I used a 100mm USM macro Seacam focus gear as the zoom gear on my Tamron. I had to use some shims as the gear ID was slightly (1mm on each side) too large.

I chose the Tamron because it was available, and because I have tried and like their 180mm macro. It also looked a little thinner. I'm sure the Sigma is a good lens too.

Cheers
James

[bruceterrill]

Hi James,
Have you got your Phillipines gallery up yet?
I would love to see some more images from the big Tamron...
Bruce

[james]

Hi Bruce,

Not yet - But I did finish remodeling the kitchen - woohoo! Now I have to move everything back in there. Then maybe I'll process some more pix - lol.

Cheers
James

[james]

DPreview have just posted their review of the Sigma 70-200 Macro:

http://www.dpreview....70-200_2p8_n15/

How does it compare to the Tamron?

Cheers
James

[bmyates]

DPreview have just posted their review of the Sigma 70-200 Macro:

http://www.dpreview....70-200_2p8_n15/

How does it compare to the Tamron?

Hmmm...based on that review, I'd say the Tamron is a better choice for uw use. It's hard enough to get good photos uw, without starting out with inferior optics at the long end (where it would be used most for macro photography), plus the Tamron provides about 15% more macro magnification.

Not to mention the fact that the Tamron has the advantage of you already having done all the work of trying it out for us, James!