Hmm, the lightness will seem different when I take my Tokina ATX Pro-II 28-70 off there. I think I may just go for the 18-35, because it's probably all I can afford right now. I just wanted to see if anybody hated it.
Thanks, Jeff. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 2:19 PM Subject: Re: 18-35 vs. 16-45. > Jeff, I see in a magazine today that Tamron has just released a 17-35mm DI > (i think!) f2.8-4 lens. The DI stands for Digitally Integrated, I think. I > could be mistaken though and have this confused with another lens as I had a > lazy night on the sofa reading lots of photography mags last night! lol. > Anyways, the Tamron lens looks great, not sure how it is priced though. > > I have the FAJ 18-35mm. I really like this lens. I have been achieving > some great results with it, and it really does offer "bang for the buck". > The only thing I believe that lets it down is that it feels so light, it > makes me think that I am shooting with a toy! lol. The results speak for > themselves though, and this is obviously not the case. Also, it is a bit > slow - f5.6 at 35mm. > > At GFM, I will be able to compare the two, and I'll keep you posted. Hope > this helps some. > > tan. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Jonsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 2:59 AM > Subject: 18-35 vs. 16-45. > > > > Has anybody compared the optical quality of the two new aperture ring-less > > lenses? I am going on a week long road trip through the Southwest next > > month, and want to get a super-wide zoom for my *istD and was wondering if > I > > could get away with buying the far less expensive 18-35. Is there a third > > party super-wide zoom that anyone would recommend for the *istD? > > > > Thanks, > > Jeff. > > > > > > > >
