Long look at infinty focus
My disappointment with the Minolta AF 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5 "D" results is palatable. This was not what I had hoped at all.
I will do a side-by-side, later this week ... putting the TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO up against the Minolta AF 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5 "D" and range them out to thirty feet, instead of my usual indoor ten-foot shot. It was infinity focus where things really fell apart and I had not anticipated that.
The SIGMA AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 DC EX also seemed to be soft, out that far. Not quite as bad, but still annoyingly noticeable to me. I do not have an alternative to that lens, without losing the UWA aspect of the shots. My next widest lens available is the Minolta AF 16-35mm f/2.8-4 "D" and that's only a UWA on a SONY A900.
A closer look at far away, you might say. Perhaps not. LOL :rolleyes:
Anyway, with a bit of a crop ... this one, turned out to be the best, in my opinion. :o
And no ... President-Elect Obama will not have to worry about getting on my CF card. Aint' gonna happen.
Political Observations ... no, manufacturers, not politicians
My question to myself is: What do I currently have that will offer an equal spread of image quality across the broad focal lengths, so that when I change lenses ... I effectively get the same thing?
While in Dubuque, earlier in the week, before the USA’s youth decided to go “Socialist”, I, at least, had a chance to photograph Sarah Palin, at the GOP Rally.
I brought four lenses, which I felt would give me a broad spectrum of shots and soon found that a couple just did not deliver “the goods.”
- TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD
- TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD MACRO
- Minolta AF 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5 “D”
- SIGMA AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 DC EX
The Minolta AF 24-105 f/3.5-4.5 "D", low-light and under 20 feet seems to be all you would want for a walk-around lens. But, once you creep out to infinity focus, it gets noticeably soft. No matter what focal length I used … it was not sharp.
The SIGMA AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 DC EX also tended to show this weakness … and being a wide-angle … infinity focus, to me is more important than close-up (but, hey, I really would like both). I just happen to like those “one-shot” Vistas at 10mm.
I am planning on taking a number of test shots, later, to confirm the unimpressive results I got from the GOP Rally with the two lenses. While most of the images were better, compared to P&S cameras … coupled with the 200-500 and the 70-200 … uh, nope. I cannot marry the sets together, seamlessly.
It is my sincere hope that the TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD can return better results, overall, as a suitable replacement to the Minolta AF 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5 “D” in my bag. I am dreading the idea that I will have to go to the SONY CZ 24-70mm f/2.8 to turn out comparatively similar results to the LONG zooms.
Normally, I am an ALL TAMRON shooter ... with a few exceptions. I wanted to try and give the competition a chance ... and wound up a little disappointed. Also, I should note that I rarely take the same subject with four different lens ranges, from the same position, so this offered a rare look at the image quality and compare them. You can imagine how stunned I was to be leafing through the images and suddenlty be faced with an entire series that were ... glaringly softer than the others, on my monitor. Obviously, it is not nearly as noticeable on your camera's LCD screen. You would tend to think you've taken a decent shot and off you go. (It just ain't so!)
In the past, TAMRON often packaged lenses under Minolta's logo ... for brand loyalty. As far as I can determine, the 24-105mm design is NOT one of those lenses. Minolta designed and manufactured this one, themselves. It is a far cry better than the AF DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 "kit lens", so as an alternative, it is nice. I just need better infinity focus out of them.
Anyway, just some optical observations I have made recently. YMMV :rolleyes: