laugh at a newbie time

[extraball]

taking some shots today, with my new lens(Tamron SP70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD), and suddenly got really worried that it wouldnt step less than F5.6. I couldn't figure out why, the dial refused to do something it should, and I thought bugger it's stuffed! Got on the net, and of course I found someone with a similar issue, and they sent theirs back. I was bummed at that stage, for me this was a big purchase, and I didn't look forward to returning it via the post (online sale). So anyway, I sat down after lunch, and had another fiddle, and all of a sudden it would step to f5! I thought, hmm maybe this is an intermittant issue? I zoomed the lens to 300, and the problem came back, wont step less than 5.6. Then I had the crazy idea that focal length could have something to do with it..............and YAY at 70mm I can F4, and it changes all the way through to 300mm. I am not clear of the why/how of it yet, but......I am so happy the lens isn't stuffed!:lol:

[Bear Dale]

Have a read through this link and it should explain some more to you about your new lens -

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-Di-VC-Lens-Review.aspx

[Rattus79]

^^ BWAhaha hahah haa!!

Nice one!!

Don't stress, I honestly think ALL of us have done that same thing once (some of us twice!)

[ameerat42]

Oh, the joys of dialling in settings on modern lenses!
Come on. Don't keep the other "newbies" on tenterhooks...
Am.

[Glenda]

Yep, definitely been there done that. Glad you worked it out before paying to post it back.

[ricktas]

wait till you try and take slow shutter speed shots of waterfalls trying to get that silky water effect, and no matter what you do your photos are over-exposing when they should not be. Then after 15 minutes or so of trying to work it out, you realise you are shooting at ISO 12,600. Cause the night before you tried to get a night shot of a possum up a tree.

[greenapol]

hahaha! got the same problem when I bought my first dslr, fun part of photography lol!

[Mark L]

I still haven't figured it out.:( My lens seemed to let the camera take the photos, so I learned to live with this strange f/variation. To much hassle sending the lens back to be fixed. It actually happens on both my lens.
I'll watch this thread and hope for a solution/explanation. Probably doesn't matter, warranty period long gone!
:p:)

[extraball]

I still haven't figured it out.:( My lens seemed to let the camera take the photos, so I learned to live with this strange f/variation. To much hassle sending the lens back to be fixed. It actually happens on both my lens.
I'll watch this thread and hope for a solution/explanation. Probably doesn't matter, warranty period long gone!
:p:)

send them to me, I know a work-around, and I wont you much :p

[Rattus79]

See this is why I prefer prime and constant aperture lenses. You don't have to work out why it changes. :D

[Wayne]

Yeb, buy constant fstop lenses, no issues :) I don't own any variable aperture lenses anymore.

[extraball]

edit:meant to edit my prev post lol

[arthurking83]

Yeb, buy constant fstop lenses, no issues :) I don't own any variable aperture lenses anymore.

If you could point me to a source of compact, lightweight 70-300mm constant aperture lenses, that cost less than $500 ... it'd be much appreciated!

[Wayne]

If you could point me to a source of compact, lightweight 70-300mm constant aperture lenses, that cost less than $500 ... it'd be much appreciated!

AK, the issue here is $500 :eek:

[Rattus79]

Some of these new Compact "Super Zoom" cameras come in under the $500 and you don't have to worry about the Fstop because it's all done "automagically"

Some of them even have Micro 4/3 or APSC sensors on them!

[Kym]

If you could point me to a source of compact, lightweight 70-300mm constant aperture lenses, that cost less than $500 ... it'd be much appreciated!

Meh! I want a 500/2.8 that weighs less than 1.5kg and costs less than $1,500 :p

[fillum]

extraball, I don't think this rates too highly on the "dumb" scale at all. To be really dumb it has to cost you money (but I won't be giving examples :o).

Re prime lenses, not all primes allow you to shoot at the maximum designated aperture under all conditions.



If you could point me to a source of compact, lightweight 70-300mm constant aperture lenses, that cost less than $500 ... it'd be much appreciated!Can't think of anything off the top of my head, but this should be easily do-able if there was enough demand.*





Cheers.


* You didn't specify what the constant aperture should be :D.

[Rattus79]

Re prime lenses, not all primes allow you to shoot at the maximum designated aperture under all conditions.


Thread hi-jack:

The only time I can think of that you can't shoot wide open is shooting OCF or too bright light, but then a good Vari-ND takes care of both of those issues.

Was there a specific cicrumstance you were thinking of?

[arthurking83]

Just about all macro lenses to begin with!

Even tho Canon macro lenses indicate a particularly generous aperture value, they will in fact be a smaller value in real terms.

Most other brands that I know, actually indicate the true aperture value when they vary from the quoted value on the marketing blurb.

There are very few that I know of that don't vary their maximum aperture value in some way from the quoted value, and strangely enough, the one that I know of is actually a zoom! :confused:
Even tho that this lens is a variable aperture, it's strangely a bit different to other macros with respect to the max aperture value at specific focal lengths.

It's no longer in production tho, and is a very expensive item considering it's age.

Apart from this one lens, I don't actually know of any other macro lenses that don't vary their maximum aperture value in some way.



AK, the issue here is $500 :eek:

In what way?

For you?
For me?
Or for the OP!!

I have no issue with variable aperture lenses. My only criterion is that the lens performs as I expect it too.

[fillum]

Just to add to Arthur's post, lens specifications are generally rated when focus is at infinity. At other focus distances those specifications might not apply. In macro lenses generally the focal length increases as the magnification approaches 1.0x (1:1). So even though the physical size of the aperture doesn't change, the "f-number" increases because the focal length increases (since f-number = focal-length / aperture-diameter).

For example my Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D won't go faster than f/5 at closest focus distance (1:1). I also have a Sigma macro 105mm f/2.8 but it shows f/2.8 at minimum focus distance (1:1), however both lenses show almost the same shutterspeed for the same scene / lighting even though the reported f-numbers are almost two stops different.



Cheers.

[arthurking83]

What model is your Sigma fillum?

I've used the Tammy 90/2.8 and the Sigma 150/2.8, and on Nikon cameras they indicate the 'correct' aperture when focused closely.

Roughly about the same values too .. around f/4.8 to something like f/5 or so.

[Rattus79]

Just to add to Arthur's post, lens specifications are generally rated when focus is at infinity. At other focus distances those specifications might not apply. In macro lenses generally the focal length increases as the magnification approaches 1.0x (1:1). So even though the physical size of the aperture doesn't change, the "f-number" increases because the focal length increases (since f-number = focal-length / aperture-diameter).

For example my Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D won't go faster than f/5 at closest focus distance (1:1). I also have a Sigma macro 105mm f/2.8 but it shows f/2.8 at minimum focus distance (1:1), however both lenses show almost the same shutterspeed for the same scene / lighting even though the reported f-numbers are almost two stops different.



Cheers.

That was somthing I did not know! I think the key term here is the "reported" F=numbers.

[Redback200]

More importantly then working out how the lens works. How have the pictures turned out?