Lens to stay away from ... for better imaging
Hey guys (and gals),
I was wondering if we should do a round-robin of lenses to "shy away from", in order to provide a better idea of what will assure you an improved shot without having to fight the inherent quality of the glass.
I guess I mean what particular lens do you possibly have that is causing you heartburn and disappointment in your results. If you could elaborate on the particular problem, that might be helpful, too.
Okay ... I'll go later ... someone flip a coin and see who's next. Thanks :rolleyes:
ooo -- too harsh on Tamron, by me
My 18-250 is my sharpest lens right now, so dismissing 'all' Tamrons (but one) is extreme. I'll admit to relatively slow focusing, so that could be an issue for some. I also had their 17-35 for a while, very happy with it but let it go to finance the 18-250. I suspect I'd be happy with the fast 17-50, but will leave it for others to comment. I had a 28-200 XR Di that could be on your list though - a bit more color fringing than I liked, and somewhat soft above 135mm.
I too have a Minolta-af 70-210 2nd-gen lens, it isn't great wide open but seems to do fine work at f/6.3 and above. Compared to the 18-250 it's a speedy focuser. I need to set up a test scene and let my lenses have a fair fight some day soon, since these lenses do a lot of the same work.. but I do like the warmer Minolta colors.
Another sour lens for me was a Sigma 18-125, which the kit lens beat on a simple newsprint test. At both 18 and 35mm, the newsprint was too fuzzy & vignetted near the corners.
It should be noted that we so often generalize from one copy of these lenses, and others have great copies that serve them well.. but copy variation is a point that beginners should be aware of!