On Thu, 02 Aug 2001 15:17:20 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>Ken Durling wrote:
>
>> I just "tried" the new Tamron 24-135 f/3.5-5.6 in a store (read
>> "handled") and it felt pretty good. A lot like the 28-135 in weight
>> and heft,
>
>I was interested to read your reaction to this lens. When I tried one out (on an
>Elan 7), I didn't care for the size or the way the barrel zoomed out so far (in
>fairness, when contemplating this sort lens I'm thinking "backpacking"), and
>after a little more thought I didn't see myself having much use for a 135/5.6 in
>the kinds of situations I'd likely face when carrying this lens or one similar
>to it. In the end I couldn't see spending that kind of price (in a local camera
>shop) for what it offered. But I assume there's a market for it, and I wouldn't
>be surprised if it is optically better than the various 28-200 or 28-300 lenses
>that are out there.
>
>fcc
I don't like the long barrel zoom either - it's even longer than the
Canon 28-135.
I personally am not really interested in it, since I have a 20-40 and
a 28-135, and the Tamron 20-40's performance is good. I haven't taken
a lens backpacking yet, but can see myself wanting something longer,
for that 30 seconds in 10 years I'm likely to get with a Golden Eagle.
For me, 5.6 outdoors is only a problem around sunrise and sunset, and
then my trusty tripod comes in handy. My usage of the 28-135 does
point however, to a possible eventual purchase of a 28-70 L.
Ken
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
