Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    I believe we were talking about IQ ... that was the point. The AF 35-70mm f/4 just suffers as a lens for a different time. It is not in my old bag by accident. I used it with all my Maxxum 9000 and 7000 shots as a routine player, until I reached out, in 1994 and bought the TAMRON AF 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6, to stretch out a bit without a huge penalty in weight. In the beginning, before there was much available to the SONY system, it was a recommended lens. That time has changed. I can no longer recommend this lens when there is so much better available at a relatively decent price.

    That's how it lines up ... as time moves on. It's getter better going forward.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043

    Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    We will try to get around f/4 for focusing quality ...
    Huh? what does keeping it at f/4 have to do with focusing quality?
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Don't corn-fuse the issue ... you aren't in this arena, TenD, otherwise draw your hidden SONY DSLR and participate for real. Remember: Young eyes are watching.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Don't corn-fuse the issue ... you aren't in this arena, TenD, otherwise draw your hidden SONY DSLR and participate for real. Remember: Young eyes are watching.
    Exactly, young eyes are watching and you are out to deceive them. Now back to the question that you've dodged in your usual fashion:
    What does keeping it at f/4 have to do with focusing quality?
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    f/4 is the widest shot (on average) that we can get out of the selection of lenses. I want to shoot this wide to demonstrate an average image from them all, but we can step it up through f/5.6 and f/8 to get a spread.

    No deception ... if anything, it'll be a CLEAR demonstration of optical improvement in recent years. What is it with your constant skepticism?
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    f/4 is the widest shot (on average) that we can get out of the selection of lenses. I want to shoot this wide to demonstrate an average image from them all, but we can step it up through f/5.6 and f/8 to get a spread.

    No deception ... if anything, it'll be a CLEAR demonstration of optical improvement in recent years. What is it with your constant skepticism?
    I would say that 24mm is the widest shot you can get with these lenses. Do you mean the widest aperture? Oh. I am being a bit obtuse on purpose. I might know what you mean, but not everybody will. Shooting from several apertures would make for more fair test.

    When and AF system is taking focus the lens is always wide open, as it is when you look through the viewfinder. So using a large aperture for "focus" is incorrect, the camera will always use a wide aperture for focus.

    Summarily dismissing any older lenses as being inferior is unfair and irresponsible. The Minolta 35-70 f/4 is widely regarded as an excellent lens and a bargain for what it sells for now. It works well on digital bodies as well as film bodies. Some of these fancy coatings and digital whatnot have some merit, but it's not the black and white issue you preach here. There are many many many film lenses that do just fine on digital bodies and will outperform many Di lenses.
    Last edited by TenD; 11-30-2008 at 04:39 PM.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Look, I'll be honest, Ernest ... I have had some serious back-focus issues will my older lenses, that I do not get (other than with SIGMA) with most of the newer ones. This Quality Assurance (QA) issue could vary from lens to lens, but these have not been played with or dropped. They are responding the way they have for years.

    Unfair or not, people should compare their optics and determine their best lenses for those shots, if at all possible. Out of the box guarantees nothing other than the fact you bought a NEW lens. It could possibly shoot worse than the "kit lens" and that's saying something. It's not that hard and worth the trouble, if you plan on doing anything "substantial" with your DSLR investment.

    I have offered a simple focus-test that everyone can do at home and with minimal fuss. It reveals the shortfalls of "mis-tuned" optics. Soon we will get into a simple resolution test to reveal the difference between several optics. Let the chips fall where they may, I say! If the manufacturers are not going to tighten up their QA ... I suggest WE MAKE 'EM!
    Last edited by DonSchap; 11-30-2008 at 04:58 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Sounds like your 35-70 could use a bit of an adjustment...
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Do you have one of these, Ernest?
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Vern, a back focusing lens does not a bad lens make, I don't care if I own one or not. A lens that is back focusing on a body needs an adjustment, it's not a soft or bad lens. I would hope your test would include manual focusing if need be. Back focusing is completely different than a bad lens. A bad lens, such as the Tamron SP 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 XR Di LD won't produce a sharp image at any aperture, or focus at 300mm, at least the copy I had. It was good enough for snaps but wouldn't hold up to any cropping or heavy scrutiny. A lens that takes a little tweak in focus has a focus problem not a Lens design problem.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •