Category Archives: photographic lens

NEW Tamron 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD

Tamron, announced the new Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD for APS-C, it will be the replacement for the Tamron SP AF10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical [IF] which is on the market since 2008. The new model is based on the same idea as the old one; but it is equipped with the newest lens technology by Tamron, including VC (image stabilization) and new weather proof coating, and the new HLD-autofocus. The wide-angle-lens provides a range of 16-37mm on the APS-C camera (equivalent to full frame). The lens has 16 optical elements in 11 groups of these is one LD-element, and one XLD-element together with one aspherical-element and one hybrid-aspherical-element. The BBAR (Broad-Band Anti-Reflection) artificial aging will quash effectively reflexions and flare light inside the lens.

The lens will be available end of March for Canon and Nikon.

This could be a serious competitor for the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

Sigma received one of the highest DXOMark Score ever

The Sigma Art series is well known for its image quality. now scored the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM A Canon on the Canon 5Ds R with a score of 44. On one of Canon’s work horses the Canon 5D Mark IV the Sigma lens received an overall score of 39. Beside that, the  Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Nikon got even a Score of 50. That is the highest Score on DXOMark until today. The Sigma score for Canon just get beaten by the Carl Zeiss Distagon T* Otus 1.4/55 ZE Canon. The Carl Zeiss Distagon T* Otus 1.4/55 ZE Canon costs 4 times more than the Sigma one.



Review: Tamron SP 17-50mm F/2.8 Di II XR VC LD Aspherical IF Canon

I used Tamron for many years and I still do. Good quality and a good price. After my Canon 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS USM got broken by falling down. I needed a new lens. After checking different tests I decided to go for the Tamron.

Note: This is just the impression I had with one of thousands of lenses of this type. This is not a review of the type just of this specified lens and this just depends on my own experience of this lens. If you want a test of it. Probably go to DXOmark or some other pages. 

My last Tamron was still made in Japan. What I got now was made in China; and honestly I felt how the quality of a SP lens changed. It is still a high quality but not so much than back in the days. It’s almost just plastic with the metal barrel.  I really can’t criticize the sharpness (pretty sharp), Vignetting quite a bit (normal) and the distortion? Same also okay and nothing to criticize. Well, I have a few things which I really don’t like on this lens. First of all it’s the VC; it’s quite loud, well my Canon 100mm L macro is loud too but it is quite annoying. Furthermore I had a copy which got me a back focus. A backfocus or frontfocus is not so bad; it can happen and it was in the acceptable range. Indeed the autofocus was slow, and not slow like sometimes autofocus is slow it was really slow. I mounted the lens on a tripod and meassured over all focal lengths and from infinity to near and back diffrent distances. It was performing very bad compared to a really old Tamron (20 years old). The new lens was about double times slower than the old one; never mind if VC was on or off. This was the knock out for me for this lens. I know there can be sometimes variations but this was quite not acceptable. I was manual focusing on the same speed as the autofocus of my copy.

In despite of my experience I recommend this lens to you; because it’s a good build and good performing lens which you should really use. If you have problems with your new lens probably try a new one – every man has a bad day also a lens. If the problem still exists; it also can be the manufacture variation of the camera which produce not such a sharp image, front or back focus. It is not always the third-party lens manufacture guilty 😉 Btw I had similar problems with Canon L lenses. It can happen; so what? Go to a retailer and ask to try the lens you want to buy and they will support you most times to get one without a bloody expensive check if they know “what’s customer service”.

Did you made any bad experience with a lens? Write a comment below.

Stay tuned.


Lens baby

I think this kind of a lens makes you addicted to it. I know many other photographers who own a lens baby and they didn’t wanted to change it. They take all kind of pictures with it started with a dinner party to the point of a space shuttle start because this lens (you just focus and adjust with your fingers) makes addicted.

Lensbaby-composerLens baby make sure that a small part of the picture will be keen and in focus, while the rest part of the picture will be out of focus. This will produce energetic  and interesting pictures. The look of the pictures is just one thing – i think that really great one about babylenses are that you have to adjust the lens by yourself, like you draw the scene instead of just taking a picture.

This is a very creative lens, you can do you much with it. By the way do I told you that I love this lens?

I take this lens to take photographs… 

which are really creative.

How to use Tilt-shift-lens


Tilt-shift lenses are really special. It sounds like they have some disability. No not really but this kind of lenses are primary intended to take pictures of architecture, because parts of the lens group can be pan this prohibit that buildings in picture Canon_TS-E_24mm_f3.5Lleveling will be distorted bottom-up. Authentic architecture photographers confirm on tilt- and shift lenses oath. Most of them wouldn’t like to take photos without it. These lenses are like all special lenses expensive, a good tilt-shift lens starts at $1,900 (1.700 €).

I don’t use tilt-shift-lenses because I don’t need that kind of itemization of architecture.

Digital camera vs. Full-frame-lens

You probably heard already that the most digital cameras and DSLRs have a form factor (Crop-factor), it have an effect like a window enlargement. This implies that the millimeter information on the lens of a digital camera distinguished from a traditional 35-mm-camera. If you for example, use a traditional 85 mm lens with a DSLR than you will not really use 85mm.

A Canon works with a form factor of 1.6 so as to an 85mm you have 135mm effective. Nikon works with a form factor of 1.5 so as to an 85mm lens you are using a 127mm lens. This caused by people with changed from traditional 35mm to digital some perplexings.

Now there are still full-frame cameras – at these cameras are 85mm still 85mm. They don’t have any form factor, there is no multiplier – the lens is still what it is. There is some hook, like always! If you are screw a lens which was conceived for an APS-C camera (most cases) on a full-frame camera you get the effect of zooming.

If you are buying a full-frame DSLR, you just can use the advantages of it, if you are using the right lenses for this camera type. There are also some high-priced lenses who work excellent with full-frame-DSLRs and don’t cut the picture

Ultra wide angle zoom lens

Also this type of a lens is used for creative pictures from portrait to travel photography, is it more a specialist lens for landscape photographers. This lens is so far that it is suitable for landscapes. Watch a DVD or Blu-ray, than compare it with a super-wide-angle lens anamorphic wide picture. You will see what I think about.

This lens offers a focal length down to 12 mm – I prefer a 16-35 mm 1:4. On lenses with a smaller focal length of 12mm we talk about fisheye lenses, these lenses are not suitable for serious landscape pictures. If you are using a full-frame DSLR you can work with lenses they are made for this use (f. e. my Canon 16-35 mm), this is making a more width canonpicture than with a standard DSLRS with APS-C-Sensor.  Especially with full-frame cameras you will see the explicit improvement of the width in the picture if you are using a super-width-angle lens. As well you can use your APS-C-Sensor DSLR but the improvement of the width isn’t that much like with a full-frame.

If you really want to try it and see the difference between the APS-C and the full-frame, rent a full-frame camera or ask someone who have one to borrow it to you. Have fun and enjoy the difference between the two formats.

Macro lens

Dandelion-macro_-_Virginia_-_ForestWander>>When shall I take a macro lens? << If it’s the question you are asking yourself, you maybe should read it. The macro lens is for pictures if you want to go into the scene – really near. You all know these big pictures of Bees, Flowers or ladybirds? Real macro lenses just can do macro pictures, but this they do well.

Macro lenses having an incredibly depth of field – such short that you can take a picture of a flower, with the sharp focus on the petal in front and the background out of focus, like you almost can’t adumbrate what it is in background. I really love this short depth of field on macro lenses – but it is also a kind of a challenge, if you try to get more points of the picture in the focal point ( You can try it maybe with a f/22 to get more things in the focal point – try it in landscape format)

Every movement or shock gets you a picture that is out of focus. Therefore it’s necessary to use a tripod (if the environment hand it over) and a remote-control release. You set up the camera and the lens and for releasing the camera you don’t have to put your hands on it (it’s preventing camera shakes).Scatophaga_stercoraria_macro_Luc_Viatour

You can also try macro photography with your tele zoom or what you have at your fingertips but I tell you, you are going to see the difference between a macro lens and some other lens. If you don’t believe just go to the next photo equipment shop and ask for testing a macro lens generally they let you try it out for a few pictures. It’s could be a new passion of you taking macro pictures…

Super telephoto lens

This kind of the telephoto lens is a type of long-focus-length lens. Some people call it >>long glas<< (it is really long). You can take a photo with this lens, whatever, you want to photography, you can really close it up. Typically focal lengths for this kind of lenses are 300mm through 600 mm (it could also be more). The super telephoto lens will be used for pictures in sport, air as well aCanon_EOS-1_with_Canon_EF_USM_Super_Telephoto_L_lens_as_observation_deck_-_Hong_Kong_-_12_April_2013s animal or bird. For example, you can buy a prime lens with a fixed focal length (f.e. Nikkor 300mm f/4) or a super telephoto lens (I’m using a Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM).

If you want to shoot photos also at difficult lighting conditions (with f74 or f/2.8), it can be really expensiv (f.e. the Canon 500mm f/4 cost circa $ 9,0000 (6.400 €)) – you can also work with a smaller diaphragm at difficult lighting conditions and freez the moves. If your sport pictures are basiclly at day light you dont have to dig deep in your pockets (f.e. my Conon 100-400mm was around $2,200 (1.500 €)). By the way sometimes you can get a used super telephoto lens for a few hundred dollars / euros less than the new one, you just have to search for it and I would prefer to search in my area or places I will be soon and it should be cash and carry. The advantage for you you can to test it (there can be written a lot on auction platforms) and you have no high shippingcosts.  If you have own a lens like the Canon, you should own a monopod that you can fix on the lens (it works pretty well).

I take this kind of lens if I’m taking pictures… 

of sports of animals.

Prime lens vs. zoom lens

About the right lens you can discuss a lot and in the internet are millions of people with their opinion about the right lens. And these people discuss about their preferences and dislikes for it. One big controversy which boiled up is prime lens or zoom lens. I guess you can ask many professional photographers and all of them have different views and preferences
for the two lens.Canon_EF-S_18-135mm_IS

There are two people one who swears to prime lenses (a lens which doesn’t zoom, this lens have a fixed focal length) because they are sharper as zoom lenses. I guess that it was maybe was the case and zoom lenses were not that qualitative like prime lenses but that was in the past.

I personally think that it is not the case today because these days there exists many good qualitative zoom lenses. Possible that is not every zoom lens qualitative well but most of them have a good quality one with f/2.8 is potentially a good one. I think it is not visible to the naked eye even for professional photographer to see the difference between prime lens pictures and zoom lens pictures – maybe a handful of OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAphotographers will see it but I guess that’s just due to the conception. In fact there is no difference between prime lens and zoom lens.
I own three prime lenses and they achieves their jobs for the right moments like my zoom lenses. That is nothing that should be discus about. It is just a lens it is not politics.