A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Longing 4 Long Lens



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 9th 09, 12:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil Harrington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,001
Default Longing 4 Long Lens


"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 22:31:31 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:31:21 -0800, nospam
wrote in :

In article , John Navas
wrote:

Rebadged Tamron lens that falls short significantly in terms of
speed, telephoto reach, and quality, plus in-camera stabilization
is less effective than in-lens for long telephoto. I personally
wouldn't spend the money for a good body and put a Tamron lens on
it, but of course YMMV.

My Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro is the highest quality lens I own, and
I own a number of Canon L lenses. ...

I seriously doubt it can match the original Canon FD 100 mm f/4
Macro.

the fact that no current camera can use that lens makes it
irrelevant.

Hardly, given that many such cameras are in use, including my own
T-90.

plus, the tamron 90 is an excellent lens and differences, if any,
would require pixel peeping, ...

As I wrote, I seriously doubt it.


I have the Tamron 90mm macro also (Nikon mount, new version with built-in
AF
motor) and I believe it's the sharpest lens I own. And that's including a
couple of fixed focal length Nikkors (50/1.8 and 85/1.8) that are really,
really, really sharp.

Tamron makes some great lenses at a reasonable price. I have their
17-50/2.8
also, and I love it. In the case of both of these Tamrons, independent
lens
tests (Pop Photo, etc.) have shown them to be equal or superior to the
roughly corresponding Nikkors (105 micro and 17-55 DX) that are more than
twice the Tamrons' prices.


There's much more to a lens that just optical sharpness, as noted in my
original post above.


Sure. But the Tamron 90 appears to be a winner on just about all counts.


  #22  
Old January 9th 09, 04:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
John Navas[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,956
Default Longing 4 Long Lens

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:23:21 -0800, nospam wrote
in :

In article , John Navas
wrote:


That's just your criterion, not mine.


so you've redefined the meaning of 'current' ? ...


Nope. I'm just not buying into your criterion.

The question at hand is whether or not it can match the original Canon
FD 100 mm f/4 Macro. Anything more than a vague claim?


the point is that you are commenting on a lens you have not used and
comparing it to one which won't work on any camera sold in the last 20
or so years.


In other words, you don't.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others
  #23  
Old January 9th 09, 04:24 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
John Navas[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,956
Default Longing 4 Long Lens

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:04:36 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in :

I seriously doubt it can match the original Canon FD 100 mm f/4
Macro.


Sure. But the Tamron 90 appears to be a winner on just about all counts.


Have you ever compared it to the original Canon FD 100 mm f/4 Macro?

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others
  #24  
Old January 9th 09, 09:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default Longing 4 Long Lens

John Sheehy wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in
:

That's remarkable! What aperture on the prime lens?


That's a good question! The camera reports f/4, but I don't know off the
top of my head which TC, if any, it was basing that report on. I'll have
to re-assemble the lenses and see. IIRC, I checked what the maximum
aperture was with the combo, and went down one stop, which I why I wrote
f/16 in the description (f/4 * 4). That would suggest no reporting of the
TCs.

Of course, if this is actually f/16, then 16x the pixel density without TCs
would require f/4 for this pixel-level of diffraction.


When I stack Nikon teleconverters, the camera only reads the first one
and the lens on the end. That is remarkable performance for 4x!

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
  #25  
Old January 9th 09, 10:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Longing 4 Long Lens

In article , John Navas
wrote:

That's just your criterion, not mine.


so you've redefined the meaning of 'current' ? ...


Nope. I'm just not buying into your criterion.


you don't have to buy into anything. a camera that's 20+ years old and
hasn't been made in two decades is not current by any stretch of the
imagination. that's just ludicrous. sure it was a decent camera back
then, but current, it is not.
  #26  
Old January 9th 09, 03:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
J. Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,690
Default Longing 4 Long Lens

nospam wrote:
In article , John Navas
wrote:

That's just your criterion, not mine.

so you've redefined the meaning of 'current' ? ...


Nope. I'm just not buying into your criterion.


you don't have to buy into anything. a camera that's 20+ years old
and hasn't been made in two decades is not current by any stretch of
the imagination. that's just ludicrous. sure it was a decent
camera
back then, but current, it is not.


Apparently he defines "current" as "in his possession and working".
By his logic or lack of same a folding pocket Kodak for which the film
hasn't been made in half a century would be "current".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


  #27  
Old January 9th 09, 10:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
John Navas[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,956
Default Longing 4 Long Lens

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:04:57 -0800, nospam wrote
in :

In article , John Navas
wrote:

That's just your criterion, not mine.

so you've redefined the meaning of 'current' ? ...


Nope. I'm just not buying into your criterion.


you don't have to buy into anything. a camera that's 20+ years old and
hasn't been made in two decades is not current by any stretch of the
imagination. that's just ludicrous. sure it was a decent camera back
then, but current, it is not.


Irrelevant. I'm done. Have the last word.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others
  #28  
Old January 9th 09, 10:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
John Navas[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,956
Default Longing 4 Long Lens

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:47:15 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote in :

nospam wrote:
In article , John Navas
wrote:

That's just your criterion, not mine.

so you've redefined the meaning of 'current' ? ...

Nope. I'm just not buying into your criterion.


you don't have to buy into anything. a camera that's 20+ years old
and hasn't been made in two decades is not current by any stretch of
the imagination. that's just ludicrous. sure it was a decent
camera
back then, but current, it is not.


Apparently he defines "current" as "in his possession and working".
By his logic or lack of same a folding pocket Kodak for which the film
hasn't been made in half a century would be "current".


I'm making no definition of current.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others
  #30  
Old January 11th 09, 07:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil Harrington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,001
Default Longing 4 Long Lens


"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:04:36 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in :

I seriously doubt it can match the original Canon FD 100 mm f/4
Macro.


Sure. But the Tamron 90 appears to be a winner on just about all counts.


Have you ever compared it to the original Canon FD 100 mm f/4 Macro?


No, I don't have any Canon-mount lenses. But I haven't compared it to the
Micro Nikkor 105 either. I'm going by the online extensive test results
(definition, contrast etc.) of this and various similar macro lenses, plus
the fact that I really love everything about the Tamron and it seems to me
the ideal lens of this type.

I also have the Tokina 100mm macro and that's a fine lens also; I like the
Tamron better.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon AF Long Lens under $9,000 !! s John Smith[_5_] Digital Photography 79 January 6th 09 01:48 AM
decent long zoom lens min foc 3ft is there one ? [email protected] General Equipment For Sale 0 May 17th 05 11:44 AM
NON-TRIPOD support for long lens [email protected] Digital Photography 3 May 5th 05 09:39 PM
Got 350 XT Today, Need Long Lens Kyle Boatright Digital SLR Cameras 5 April 9th 05 10:02 PM
OM-1 Long lens solution Al Other Photographic Equipment 2 December 31st 03 07:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.