I'd forgive you for being metric if 80 grams didn't equal a little
under three ounces, ~2.83 ounces to be more exact. Those lenses seemed
nice and light until you applied your conversion factor...
On 9/5/2010 1:12 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
My apologies for being metric but 17-50 weighs 430 g (or so) and 28-75
weighs 510 g (or so). As far as my non-metric knowledge goes, 80 g is
nowhere close to 1/2 pound...
I've Tamron 28-75/2.8 and it seems my copy is outstanding. On Pentax
DSLR it yields angle of view similar to that of 43-110 mm lens, give
or take few mm on the long end. If you get a good sample, it will
light your face with excellent sharpness even wide open. On the
downside the colors are slightly warmer than those of Pentax, but
personally, I don't have anything against that. Also sometimes the
bokeh is pretty harsh. It is however pretty small (67 mm filter
thread) and light for this class of lens (standard 2.8 zoom).
I don't own Tamron 17-50/2.8 mainly because it is not a full frame
lens (or a fool frame lens, if you want to call me that way). But I
did recommend it to a number of my friends and they are quite happy.
It shouldn't be a problem to find loads of (full size) images from
both lenses on sites such as pbase or pixelpeeper.
There is one more thing worth mentioning for Tamron 28-75/2.8. Both
zoom and focus rings rotate the Pentax way. As opposed, e.g., to Sigma
24-60/2.8 which does it the other way around...
Boris
--
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral
bankruptcy."
-Woody Allen
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
