I'm avare of the limitations of slow lenses. And 3,5-6,3 isn't that bad, if you see it as a superzoom P&S on steroids. Any way. That's why I plan to suplement it with faster and better alternatives. I already have the Tamron 28-75/2,8. It's a very useful lens, but the range is limited in both ends.
Tim Typo Mostly Harmless ----- Original Message ----- From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 10:18 PM Subject: Re: Tamron 18-250 as a walk about, and/or a DA 50-200 substitute Well, I've recently come to realize why I haven't been shooting with long lenses very much: all the ones I've had for a while are too slow. I've acquired both a Nikkor 105/2.5 and a Nikkor 180/2.8 for the L1 body ... I find them a joy to use, despite being all manual focus and manual iris operation. The Canon 300/4L IS was a wonderful lens and *just* fast enough. Now I need one of those FA*200/2.8 or similar ... sigh. Godfrey On Jun 17, 2007, at 10:42 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: > I have been thinking a lot lately about geting a bit more reach > with AF. I > don't have any AF lenses above 75mm. > > The DA 50-200 seem to be the obvious answer to this "need", and > thats what I > have intended to buy. But now I've read a lot about the new Tamron > 18-250. > It gets very positive reviews, and positive user reports at > DPReview. Many > compares it with the Nikon 18-200. I've also seen it compared with > the DA > 50-200, and as I read the results they are rather similar at the > long end. > Except that the Tamron has poorer edge sharpness. But how important > is edge > sharpnes at the tele range? Most times when I'm using long glass it > is to > isolate the subject. The Tamron seem to be better than DA 50-200 > around > 50mm. It also seem to be on par with the 18-55, except at 18, there > the > 18-55 seem to have an edge (wide open). I know that test graphicks and > practical rendering is not always the same. But the tests seems very > convinsing. And so are the user reports. > > I'm not thinking the Tamron as a lens for serious work, more a walk > about, a > substitute for a P&S camera. > I can also see a combination of the new DA* in my horizon. Most > likely 16-50 > and 60-250, perhaps even the 50-135 too. But in some situations a > compromise > seem to be the sensible thing. So until they turn up, and until I > can turn > up the cash the Tamron seem to be a good thing. What do you think? > > Have I lost it? (If I ever had it). I was "this" close to clicking the > purchase button yesterday. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 17.06.2007 08:23 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
