CANON stomps Nikon .... Again !!!

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:29:38 -0000, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Mark Roberts wrote:

BTW: Anyone have any experience with the Tamron 17-35?
I'm thinking of buying one (though mine would be in Pentax mount).

Hasn't appeared on the http://photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm
lens comparison page yet. I have seen no reviews of it. It's new.

Mark, for what reason would you prefer the Tamron over the Pentax
FA J Zoom 18-35/4-5.6 AL? Or the PENTAX DA 16-4/F4 ED AL?

The Tamron is faster and (I presume) much more heavy-duty
construction. I've used the Pentax FAJ 18-35 and it's a nice lens
optically but they obviously built it to a price point and probably
won't take the kind of extended abuse I'm likely to give it.

And I want to be able to use the lens on my film bodies as well as my
digital, so the DA 16-45 is out.

I'm not sure why you need a big honkin' lens with 77 filters
just for wide angle shots.

Because 77m filters are what I already own (for my Pentax 80-200/2.8
and Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8).

Pentax 16-45/4 AL ED DA 365g 92mm $ ? 28cm ø67
Pentax 18-35/4-5.6 AL J 190g 69mm $ ? 28cm ø67
Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 Di 440g 86mm $480 30cm ø77

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:29:38 -0000, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Mark Roberts wrote:

BTW: Anyone have any experience with the Tamron 17-35?
I'm thinking of buying one (though mine would be in Pentax mount).

Hasn't appeared on the http://photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm
lens comparison page yet. I have seen no reviews of it. It's new.

Mark, for what reason would you prefer the Tamron over the Pentax
FA J Zoom 18-35/4-5.6 AL? Or the PENTAX DA 16-4/F4 ED AL?

The Tamron is faster and (I presume) much more heavy-duty
construction. I've used the Pentax FAJ 18-35 and it's a nice lens
optically but they obviously built it to a price point and probably
won't take the kind of extended abuse I'm likely to give it.

And I want to be able to use the lens on my film bodies as well as my
digital, so the DA 16-45 is out.

I'm not sure why you need a big honkin' lens with 77 filters
just for wide angle shots.

Because 77m filters are what I already own (for my Pentax 80-200/2.8
and Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8).

Pentax 16-45/4 AL ED DA 365g 92mm $ ? 28cm ø67
Pentax 18-35/4-5.6 AL J 190g 69mm $ ? 28cm ø67
Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 Di 440g 86mm $480 30cm ø77

Mark Roberts wrote:

The Tamron is faster and (I presume) much more heavy-duty
construction. I've used the Pentax FAJ 18-35 and it's a nice lens
optically but they obviously built it to a price point and probably
won't take the kind of extended abuse I'm likely to give it.

And I want to be able to use the lens on my film bodies as well as my
digital, so the DA 16-45 is out... 77m filters are what I already own
(for my Pentax 80-200/2.8 and Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8).

That makes sense.

You're saying the FAJ 18-35 is a full-frame lens? I thought both it
and the DA 16-45 were partial frame, but I guess not. (I have not
followed Pentax products in recent years.)

For new owners, the DA 16-45 combined with a 200/4 macro or 300/4.5
would make a nice combination. All take =F867 filters.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:01:54 -0000, Bill Tuthill wrote:

You're saying the FAJ 18-35 is a full-frame lens? I thought both it
and the DA 16-45 were partial frame, but I guess not. (I have not
followed Pentax products in recent years.)

Yes. And what's more, it's very good from an optical performance
standpoint. I borrowed one for a hike this past summer: I was carrying
a backpack with tent, sleeping bag, food, water, etc., so I couldn't
bring along much camera gear. I was highly suspicious of the FAJ
18-35: It's featherweight, all plastic (except for the lens elements).
Even the lens mount is plastic. I thought it couldn't possibly be any
good, but the images I got back were excellent. Not as sharp as I'd
get from my FA* or Limited lenses, of course, but far beyond what I
expected from a sub-$200 zoom. I've made several good 12 x 18 inch
prints from the shots I took with it.

The "DA" lenses are the small-image-circle lenses for digital. The
"FA-J" lenses are inexpensive zooms for film or digital.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:01:54 -0000, Bill Tuthill wrote:

You're saying the FAJ 18-35 is a full-frame lens? I thought both it
and the DA 16-45 were partial frame, but I guess not. (I have not
followed Pentax products in recent years.)

Yes. And what's more, it's very good from an optical performance
standpoint. I borrowed one for a hike this past summer: I was carrying
a backpack with tent, sleeping bag, food, water, etc., so I couldn't
bring along much camera gear. I was highly suspicious of the FAJ
18-35: It's featherweight, all plastic (except for the lens elements).
Even the lens mount is plastic. I thought it couldn't possibly be any
good, but the images I got back were excellent. Not as sharp as I'd
get from my FA* or Limited lenses, of course, but far beyond what I
expected from a sub-$200 zoom. I've made several good 12 x 18 inch
prints from the shots I took with it.

The "DA" lenses are the small-image-circle lenses for digital. The
"FA-J" lenses are inexpensive zooms for film or digital.

Mark Roberts wrote:

BTW: Many of Nikon & Canon's inexpensive consumer zooms are rebadged
Tamrons.

from where did you get this information?

Wolfgang

Mark Roberts wrote:

BTW: Many of Nikon & Canon's inexpensive consumer zooms are rebadged
Tamrons.

from where did you get this information?

Wolfgang

Mark Roberts wrote:

BTW: Many of Nikon & Canon's inexpensive consumer zooms are rebadged
Tamrons.

from where did you get this information?

Wolfgang

7. The CMOS sensor. Not only has it more pixels (6.3Mp vs 6Mp), but it
is generally recognised as having lower noise and better tonality than
the Nikon/Sony sensor. BTW, 6.3 vs 6 Mp is better than a 10% increase.

Last time I checked, 10% of 6 is .6, so 6.3 would be _exactly_ a 5%
increase...

7. The CMOS sensor. Not only has it more pixels (6.3Mp vs 6Mp), but it
is generally recognised as having lower noise and better tonality than
the Nikon/Sony sensor. BTW, 6.3 vs 6 Mp is better than a 10% increase.

Last time I checked, 10% of 6 is .6, so 6.3 would be _exactly_ a 5%
increase...