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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Longing 4 Long Lens
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 12:48 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 06:29 PM |