All unsharp to my opinion. Please share your views
HB-JRV, 1988, Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 601-3A C/N 5035;
PH-HZG, Boeing 737-8K2, C/N 28379
PH-XRV, Boeing 737-7k2, C/N 34170
EHRD / Rotterdam
Forum rules
 | This is the forum to share your recent aviation photos with the rest of the community, being photos not older than six months at the moment of topic opening. Theme-based topics, not about recent events, should go into the sub-forum. Although we will not screen beforehand, we reserve the right to delete any images, especially if clearly unsharp or otherwise low in quality. For more information on how to upload you images, check this post. In topic titles, please use airfield names in stead of just codes, and be clear about what kind of photos your viewers can expect (e.g. CIV/MIL, location etc.). Finally, bring any photo criticism understandable and to the point, not cynical or offensive! Simultaneously, do not feel offended by criticism per se, but simply explain your motives, taste et cetera, or ignore if you wish so. |
-
Melmac
- Scramble Junior
- Posts: 208
- Joined: 08 May 2010, 22:13
- Type of spotter: ex F4 now SF
- Subscriber Scramble: Melmac
- Location: Schiphol
- Contact:
EHRD / Rotterdam
Testing a possible new lens, I dont think it will be this one.
All unsharp to my opinion. Please share your views
HB-JRV, 1988, Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 601-3A C/N 5035;
PH-HZG, Boeing 737-8K2, C/N 28379
PH-XRV, Boeing 737-7k2, C/N 34170
All unsharp to my opinion. Please share your views
HB-JRV, 1988, Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 601-3A C/N 5035;
PH-HZG, Boeing 737-8K2, C/N 28379
PH-XRV, Boeing 737-7k2, C/N 34170
What goes up..........Must come down for maintenance
Re: EHRD / Rotterdam
Perhaps good to give some background on the equipment you used?
I'm not an expert, but perhaps someone could give you feedback?
I'm not an expert, but perhaps someone could give you feedback?
-
ChrisGlobe
- Scramble Junior
- Posts: 157
- Joined: 18 Oct 2010, 21:46
- Type of spotter: Photograph cursing that you have missed the serial
- Subscriber Scramble: ChrisGlobe
Re: EHRD / Rotterdam
Sadly Photobucket has compressed the images to the point at which it's impossible to tell. 
Try uploading one to abload.de and posting it here?
Try uploading one to abload.de and posting it here?
-
Melmac
- Scramble Junior
- Posts: 208
- Joined: 08 May 2010, 22:13
- Type of spotter: ex F4 now SF
- Subscriber Scramble: Melmac
- Location: Schiphol
- Contact:
Re: EHRD / Rotterdam
Hi Guys,
Thanks for the replies.
Equipment used;
Body; Sony Alpha 350
Lens; Cosina 100-400mm 1 : 4.5 - 6.7
I'll try to upload via another site later.
Thanks for the replies.
Equipment used;
Body; Sony Alpha 350
Lens; Cosina 100-400mm 1 : 4.5 - 6.7
I'll try to upload via another site later.
What goes up..........Must come down for maintenance
-
Snipes
- Scramble Die-Hard
- Posts: 538
- Joined: 31 Jul 2010, 07:47
- Type of spotter: Photographer
- Subscriber Scramble: Snipes
- Location: IJsselstein(UT)
- Contact:
Re: EHRD / Rotterdam
I found this review on internet:
"Pros:Sharp at 135 to 300, Cheap, Light weight
Cons:Low build quality, very soft at 400 at any aperture, pump zoom too loose
The Bottom Line: $200 is too expensive for the quality. A good buy for 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 lens at $150 (new) or $75 (used). Stay away if you want a real 400mm.
Vivitar, Cosina, and Phoenix are all actually the same.
It is the cheapest zoom of 100-400mm focal length I can find in the market. Especially since I got a mint used one at $80. Summarily the quality is below par, but at this price, I would say it's a good deal.
It is a push-pull type of zoom, sometimes called a pump-zoom.
SHARPNESS:
Not too bad at 100mm stopped down, surprisingly sharp from 135mm to about 300mm (especially at f/8 to f/16). From 300mm to 400mm it gets soft very quicken and very soft at 400 end at any aperture. I would say it's about as sharp as Canon EF 100-300 5.6L (not the 4.0-5.6L) from 135 to 300.
CONTRAST:
Not very good. I almost always have to boost the contrast in Photoshop. Lots of light will help.
FLARE:
Terrible. One of the worst that I have used. A good hood may help but I haven't tried.
BUILD QUALITY:
Not very good. At the maximum zoom, the front element seems to be shaking a little bit, results in very soft image at 400mm even on a good tripod. It seems that winds or flipping mirror on the camera while taking the shot will cause the front element to vibrate a bit.
The zoom is also too loose, it means that the zoom will move when you tilt the lens up or down, even in a small angle.
Manual focusing is not full-time, you will have to manually switch from AF to MF.
Autofocus is acceptably quick. I would say it's about par with Canon EF 75-300 USM. From minimum distance to infinity, it takes about 2 seconds.
VALUE FOR MONEY:
Certainly not a good value for money at $200. Only buy it if you can find a used one in good condition at less than $90.
BOTTOMLINE:
A decent 100-300 F4.5-5.6 Lens, 400 is barely usable unless you print only at 4x6 or 5x7 at most."
"Pros:Sharp at 135 to 300, Cheap, Light weight
Cons:Low build quality, very soft at 400 at any aperture, pump zoom too loose
The Bottom Line: $200 is too expensive for the quality. A good buy for 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 lens at $150 (new) or $75 (used). Stay away if you want a real 400mm.
Vivitar, Cosina, and Phoenix are all actually the same.
It is the cheapest zoom of 100-400mm focal length I can find in the market. Especially since I got a mint used one at $80. Summarily the quality is below par, but at this price, I would say it's a good deal.
It is a push-pull type of zoom, sometimes called a pump-zoom.
SHARPNESS:
Not too bad at 100mm stopped down, surprisingly sharp from 135mm to about 300mm (especially at f/8 to f/16). From 300mm to 400mm it gets soft very quicken and very soft at 400 end at any aperture. I would say it's about as sharp as Canon EF 100-300 5.6L (not the 4.0-5.6L) from 135 to 300.
CONTRAST:
Not very good. I almost always have to boost the contrast in Photoshop. Lots of light will help.
FLARE:
Terrible. One of the worst that I have used. A good hood may help but I haven't tried.
BUILD QUALITY:
Not very good. At the maximum zoom, the front element seems to be shaking a little bit, results in very soft image at 400mm even on a good tripod. It seems that winds or flipping mirror on the camera while taking the shot will cause the front element to vibrate a bit.
The zoom is also too loose, it means that the zoom will move when you tilt the lens up or down, even in a small angle.
Manual focusing is not full-time, you will have to manually switch from AF to MF.
Autofocus is acceptably quick. I would say it's about par with Canon EF 75-300 USM. From minimum distance to infinity, it takes about 2 seconds.
VALUE FOR MONEY:
Certainly not a good value for money at $200. Only buy it if you can find a used one in good condition at less than $90.
BOTTOMLINE:
A decent 100-300 F4.5-5.6 Lens, 400 is barely usable unless you print only at 4x6 or 5x7 at most."
Greetz Wesly