Save & earn with MPB; trade-in and buy pre-loved

Latest Lens Comments

Latest comments, thoughts and reaction to our recently reviewed Photography Lenses, including the Canon RF 100-400mm F/5.6-8 IS USM Lens Review.

The value for money score should be 5/5. I have the RF 100-500mm for my R5, and bought the RF100-400mm for my wife for her R6 as she can no longer handle the weight of the EF 100-400mm II. I liked it so much I bought a second one for myself as it is so small and light and optically pretty close to the old EF lens, and I use it for long hikes or around town when I don't want to be too conspicuous with a bigger white lens.

Made by AlanRF on 21 May 2022 9:35AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Thanks Len, it's true that testing very long lenses is a challenge, but it can be done with care, using various techniques, even a second tripod under the lens barrel to stabilise things, and certainly using the delayed action for usually a 10 or 12 second delay. Even better when this raises the mirror on DSLRs before the shutter fires. With mechanical shutters there is also shutter vibration and this can peak at certain shutter speeds, which will then potentially create anomalous readings at that point.

Thanks again for the input, always appreciated.

Made by johnriley1uk on 19 May 2022 10:09AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Is there a typo - as in the missing "7" from the description of the camera body used.

Should you at some stage consider the tripod and heady you use for your tests?

While the Manfrotto 055 tripod and 115 head used for your standard testing are relatively affordable I find they have relative inadequate stability with focal lengths longer than about 100mm.

Clarifying it could take the image up to 10 seconds to stabilise with this tripod set-up is useful - and also to me a very clear indication a much more stable tripod/head despite the significant cost is needed to reasonably test this type of lens.

Made by LenShepherd on 19 May 2022 8:30AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

The limiting factor here would seem to be diffraction, which gradually reduces resolution as we stop down. In theory a "perfect lens" would behave in such a way. I'm not suggesting this is a perfect lens in that context, but it's unusual but what was measured. There may well be other factors in the design affecting the end result.

Made by johnriley1uk on 13 May 2022 12:06PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Sorry, but it doesnīt make any sense to me that a 14mm-35mm is "Excellent" wide open to beyond the standard usages, usually f8.
Does "Excellent" have lose values?

Made by GEONYC on 13 May 2022 10:55AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Why extend the Tamron 28mm-70mm to 105mm, when 85mm would be more than good enough, and most photographers buy prime
105mm Macros for very sharp results, anyway. Shouldnīt a 2.5X zoom be a bit sharper, lighter, and cheaper than an, almost 3X zoom?

Made by GEONYC on 13 May 2022 10:50AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Thanks for those Mistral75, we'll get that sorted ASAP. I did mean closer focusing, because although it does marginally focus closer than the traditional 0.45m it's a very small difference. Zoom lenses tend to trounce primes for close focusing and just a little more would have been nice. However, not a major point and certainly not a deal breaker.

Made by johnriley1uk on 6 May 2022 11:39AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

The specifications on page 4 (filter size 67mm - maximum magnification 0.15x - min focus 45cm - 9 elements in 8 groups - 585g) are those of version I, not version II (filter size 72mm - maximum magnification 0.16x - min focus 40cm - 11 elements in 8 groups - 420g).

Made by Mistral75 on 6 May 2022 11:27AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

Hi there

Thank you for this review. What does "Closure focusing would be useful" mean?

It can't be a typo for 'closer focusing' since you praise the 0.40m minimum focusing distance: "Traditional 50mm lenses would focus down to around 0.45m, so there is a minor advantage with the new Samyang."

Made by Mistral75 on 6 May 2022 11:21AM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply

I donīt use religion to prove a very personal and self-serving opinion. Nothing is "Certain". Has anyone ever seen a photographer with
two different brands and two different lenses, based on the two sharpest lenses available, and based on the needs of the Photographer and/or the Client/Publication/Gallery, NO! Duder is not wrong for Duder, BUT... He is pushing his personal opinion on others who rely
on his judgment which should be based on tests, not just his choice which as he just wrote is based more on his budget.
Added Comment: I (Personal Opinion) have NEVER let size and weight especially when I have no idea as to the needs of the Photographer and their size. To me, photography is all about the sharpness of the photo... Nothing else.
The rest only adds to the confusion of choice and sales pitches. My personal opinion today would be a Nikon Z9 for the Best FF regardless of price, the Canon R for Best for a low price, and the Sony A7RIV for Best for the price, overall.
All based on: TEST with at least three lenses you would expect to buy in the future. Another choice would be to test the Nikon D750/780 and D850 or a Canon 5D IV or Sony A7RII/III as best examples of the DSLRs with the lower-priced bodies and lenses
with the same basic picture qualities, Etc. I have a D750 and D858 with 18-35 3.5, 28mm 1.8, and 85 1.8 (An 105 2.8 might be a better
choice for others.) Most of my work is in the field of Documentation Photography and covering art and photo events, meaning installations and portraits.

Made by GEONYC on 25 Apr 2022 2:54PM, join in and reply to this comment!  Reply