Shyandinnocent 0 #1 October 23, 2005 Hi Have been offered a Tamron 14ml lens for not so much monies... Does anyone know this lens? Is it heavy? (have only little scrawny girly neck for camerajumping) Does anyone know if it has a lot of 'fisheye' disortion or if the picture is reasonably flat? Is to be used mostly for tandem vids, so if anyone has any good reasons pro or con, I would love to hear from you. Thanks It's never too late for a low turn! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shyandinnocent 0 #2 October 23, 2005 ...offered a Tamron 14ml lens for not so much monies... Does anyone know... I mean 14mm of course... It's never too late for a low turn! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbla4024 0 #3 October 24, 2005 Friend of mine jumps it. Canon 350D + Tamron 14mm topmounted on Flat Top Pro. Quite heavy lens. Fido Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ematteo 0 #4 October 24, 2005 All of the 14's (Tamron, Canon, Sigma) are really heavy. Most freefliers here (N. California) jump a Sigma 15mm fisheye. It is small and light but it fisheyes badly and you can't use a filter. I have seen tandem folks use the kit 18-55mm, but the quality sucks. I just got the EF-S 10-22 and it is fantastic. _very clear_, light weight, and _no fisheye_. Goes for ~$650 US on ebay. The negs are price and it is an EF-S lens (it fits only the 350, 300, and 20D not full-frame sensor cameras). Sweet lens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pcalandra 0 #5 October 25, 2005 QuoteAll of the 14's (Tamron, Canon, Sigma) are really heavy. Most freefliers here (N. California) jump a Sigma 15mm fisheye. It is small and light but it fisheyes badly and you can't use a filter. I have seen tandem folks use the kit 18-55mm, but the quality sucks. ***I just got the EF-S 10-22 and it is fantastic. _very clear_, light weight, and _no fisheye_. Goes for ~$650 US on ebay. The negs are price and it is an EF-S lens (it fits only the 350, 300, and 20D not full-frame sensor cameras). Sweet lens. Any chance you could post a couple of examples from that lens? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ematteo 0 #6 October 25, 2005 Sure thing. Here are two shots, uncropped, plus crops to show detail. Shot on a Canon 350, with lens at ~15mm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ematteo 0 #7 October 25, 2005 This is a series of shots at 10mm, 15mm, 22mm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ematteo 0 #8 October 25, 2005 This is a crappy (dark) picture that shows the rectilinear (straight) nature of the lens, even at the edges. Another in-plane pic and a canopy picture just because. All at ~15mm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newshooter12 0 #9 October 25, 2005 that makes me want to take my brother up on using his Sigma 15 - 30mm aspherical lens when i get to flying a still camera. the weight of it has me wondering what kind of helmet you have on your noggin when you're flying stills. matt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ematteo 0 #10 October 25, 2005 The Sigma 15-30 weighs a lot (21.7 oz / 615g). This is heavy. Using a lighter body (350 vs 20D) helps, but 21.7 oz is a lot of weight. That is nearly as much as the Tamron 14mm (23.3oz). Here are weights for the other lenses I mentioned: Sigma 15mm: 13oz, Canon 18-55mm: 6.7oz, Canon 10-22mm: 13.6 oz. Generally, 1) a zoom tends not to be as sharp as a prime (fixed lens) - I think the Canon 10-22 is an exception to this 2) a zoom at its extreme focal length is not as sharp as the same lens in the middle of its range 3) off-brand lenses (Sigma, Tamron) tend not to be as sharp as the manufacturer's glass - Sigma 15mm fixed is exceptionally sharp but it has other issues (fisheye, no filter) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newshooter12 0 #11 October 25, 2005 i agree that the weight is a lot. and thanks for the info, but i still would like to know what kind of helmet you are using. especially with the fairly long barrel of some of these lenses are you using a Flat Top Pro or something else?? matt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ematteo 0 #12 October 25, 2005 Those pics were taken with a top-mount on a converted freefly helmet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shyandinnocent 0 #13 October 26, 2005 Thanks for your information. The weight issue worries me a little bit, but I must admit that I bought it anyway. The price was that good that I can sell it again without much or any loss if it turns out I cant use it. I have been using the 18-55mm for tandem vids, but it sucks and I hate selling photos that I aren't 110% happy with. They don't know better half the time, but I do! Do you recon the sharpness is an issue with this Tamron? (I haven't recieved it yet, so have had no opportunity to try it out... Taa... It's never too late for a low turn! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ematteo 0 #14 October 26, 2005 I can't vouch for the sharpness, but a pro (only source of income) ground photographer I know swears by his. Tell us how you like it (and start those neck exercises)! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pcalandra 0 #15 October 29, 2005 Thanks for posting those pictures, that lens looks exceptional and I especially like the lack of distortion that is SO evident with the Sigma 15. This lens is definitely going on my buy list! Pat Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ematteo 0 #16 November 6, 2005 Glad to help. Ebay is a pretty good source for quality lenses, especially the ultra-wide angles. Rich amateurs buy them, then realize they have no use for something this wide. You can set up a screen to send you email when something comes up below a pre-set "buy it now" price. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ematteo 0 #17 December 4, 2005 good price for a 10-22mm Canon, now on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7569294519&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
