Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   

View Poll Results: What proposed lens sees the light of day, in your inventory?

Voters
8. You may not vote on this poll
  • SONY AF 28-75mm f/2.8

    1 12.50%
  • SONY 30mm f/2.8 MACRO

    0 0%
  • SONY DT 50mm f/1.8

    2 25.00%
  • SONY DT 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

    1 12.50%
  • SONY DT 55-200mm f/4-5.6

    0 0%
  • SONY Super Telephoto (500mm f/4?)

    1 12.50%
  • None of the above. How about a serious lens? (see details in post)

    3 37.50%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: The PMA lenses

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by TenD View Post
    Duck Duck Dive Dive. You have refined it to an art. You sail right on by my point.

    My point is: you have spent money like a madman. Three, count 'em, three Tamron super zooms all covering basically the same focal length, you could have purchased one good lens for all of that money. 70-200, 70-210, 70-300, 80-400, holy cow over over lap lap, again you could easily eliminate 3 of these 4 lenses. You have spent the money, it's just in your blind Tamron Kool-aid drinking, you purchase over and over trying to find something decent.

    Tamron 17-50, 28-75, 70-200, 200-500, that's all you need, you're covered. Yet you've purchased lenses all around these and in between these, and you're proud of it. I have no right whatsoever to tell you how to spend your money, but when you insinuate that purchasing the good glass is too expensive, you have to take a look at your gear list and wonder why all those overlapping mediocre lenses isn't an example of expensive.

    I have 4 pro level lenses that offer my body maximum performance that cover the same range you have. I tried a couple of Tammys and they immediately went on eBay, they just didn't measure up, not even close. That was all the proof I needed to never purchase another Tamron lens. I understand that Tamron does make some optical gems, they aren't cheap though(less than some OEM counterparts)and the AF makes them less of a bargain.
    Don is quite the collector.....

    But as you pointed out that lineup would suffice. Although the 28-75mm really isn't needed as it's more or less covered well. I would supplement that with a 10-20 (or some other UWA zoom) (which Don does have).
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Question Who's running my camera bag anyway

    Quote Originally Posted by TenD View Post
    Duck Duck Dive Dive. You have refined it to an art. You sail right on by my point.

    My point is: you have spent money like a madman. Three, count 'em, three Tamron super zooms all covering basically the same focal length, you could have purchased one good lens for all of that money. 70-200, 70-210, 70-300, 80-400, holy cow over over lap lap, again you could easily eliminate 3 of these 4 lenses. You have spent the money, it's just in your blind Tamron Kool-aid drinking, you purchase over and over trying to find something decent.

    Tamron 17-50, 28-75, 70-200, 200-500, that's all you need, you're covered. Yet you've purchased lenses all around these and in between these, and you're proud of it. I have no right whatsoever to tell you how to spend your money, but when you insinuate that purchasing the good glass is too expensive, you have to take a look at your gear list and wonder why all those overlapping mediocre lenses isn't an example of expensive.

    I have 4 pro level lenses that offer my body maximum performance that cover the same range you have. I tried a couple of Tammys and they immediately went on eBay, they just didn't measure up, not even close. That was all the proof I needed to never purchase another Tamron lens. I understand that Tamron does make some optical gems, they aren't cheap though(less than some OEM counterparts)and the AF makes them less of a bargain.
    Just where are you going to get SONY-mount glass, big guy? The options are quite limited ... as Tokina does not offer a single lens in their lineup.
    Not a single one.

    Sigma's offers are somewhat sparse ... and have been problematic, because SONY does not license their manufacture.

    TAMRON is the SONY "Team Player" ... so like, give me a break. Your Canon-system may not operate as smoothly as the SONY does with
    TAMRON glass. Hey, I'm not surprised and would say your decision to avoid using it is, its own way, reasonable. My reasons, on the other
    hand, are far more involved with TAMRON being one of the main suppliers of Minolta-glass, back in the good old days, They are still the
    base lens for many of the SONY low-end designs:

    28-75 f/2.8, 18-200 f/3.5-6.3, 18-250 f/3.5-6.3, and the 75-300 f/4-5.6. If you look close, you might see the TAMRON-logo
    stamped inside.

    So ... you probably need to back off on the TAMRON slam. Unless you own a Minolta or SONY camera ... you know not from
    whence you speak. Did you feel the need for some kind personal, judgmental attack on my photographic solution. I'll make you deal ...
    you fill the till ... and I let you dictate the glass.

    Anyway ... (hmmpf ), just so there is no mistake in understanding the reasons ...

    My early "Super Zooms" are dated film lenses (f/3.8-5.6) ... which have a MFD of 6.7 feet. You want to fight with that ... you are welcome to it.
    I have since replaced them with the amazing 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 Super Zoom lens, M.F.D. = 18-inches. Far more useful. It normally sits on my
    α100, as a backup and "Grab & Go" camera. Is it redundant to my other lenses ... darn tootin' ... that is kind of the meaning of "backup."

    Again, on my Full Frame 35mm film camera, the 28-75mm f/2.8 (Di) performs quite nicely. The 17-50 f/2.8 is an APS-C lens (Di-II) and does not.

    The KM 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (D) is a full frame lens ... the SIGMA 10-20mm f/4-5.6 is an 17-50 is an APS-C lens (DC) and does not.

    When it comes to the super zooms ... and my 5x 35mm-film camera bodies,



    the 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 work ... the 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II does not

    Now, perhaps I could whittle it all down to FF lenses, have I purchase an α900 ... but, it only came out last September ...
    and finances have caused me to be a little more frugal than to spring for $3000 camera bodies. I suppose I could rascal up
    the coin by selling my APS-C lenses ... but, then the poor α700 and the α100 would have nothing to wear.

    I will make you a deal, Jim ... you shoot with whatever it is that you use ... and I will shoot with my gear list.

    A lot of glass from now ... and the past. And besides, the chances are I only have four of my lenses with me, at any one time:
    (total cost of the selection)

    Outdoors (airshows and non-trail work):
    10-20mm f/4-5.6, 28-75mm /2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, 200-500mm f/5-6.3 (~$2400)

    Outdoors (Nature & Trail):
    28-75mm f/2.8, AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (~$800)

    Indoors:
    10-20mm f/4-5.6, 17-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 & HVL-F56AM flash (~$2500)

    MACRO shots:
    90mm, 180mm (~$1000)

    Studio/Portrait:
    24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 90mm f/2.8, 135mm f/1.8, 180mm f/3.5 & Studio lighting setup & Filter bags (~$6000)

    Grab & Go:
    18-250mm f/3.5-6.5, 50mm f/1.4 {in the pocket} ($850)

    The rest is pretty much idle, as I have put the "film gear" to sleep to control costs. These were originally film lenses
    and have subsequently been replaced. It is dated equipment and resale value is quite low, so why bother? It is a little
    too aggravating knowing what I "originally" paid for it.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 05-19-2009 at 01:01 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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Almost every one of my current lens lineup is an "older film lens", not a one of them is "designed for digital", the oldest is nearly old enough to drink. All of them perform quite admirably.

    I always thought one of the big selling points of the Sony system was its ability to use Minolta legacy lenses. If you include these there is actually quite a good large selection of "Sony" glass to be had.

    Personal experience with Tamron has dictated I never buy another piece of their glass. I do understand that several of their faster lenses are quite good optically, I also understand the focus is usually quite slow. So it's a compromise, a compromise I am not willing to make.

    You are the one with the gear list 12" long. You seem to be proud to own all of that retired, "film" glass. It's impressive...sort of, but at the same time not so impressive. My Tamron "slam" is based on personal experience, reviews, and reading forums such as this one. Performance on a Minolta/Sony body may be different on a screw drive focus motor, but blurry crappy photos taken with said glass will be the same no matter what body it's mounted to. Your Tamron fanboyism started way before your switch to Sony. My Tamron disappointment started with an EOS 2 film camera 14 years ago. They have never redeemed themselves.
    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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Again, condemn as you wish. The SONY-mount options, I repeat (for the sake of argument), are limited ... unless you are ready to pony up some seriously big bucks to fill in the gaps.

    I may, eventually convert to all SONY CZ and G SSM glass, but I believe that there is no rush ... because, I feel pretty solid with what I have been able to render using the TAMRON lenses. As a "in between" solution ... it works for me and that is enough.

    Yes, I admit ... it is hard to beat what I can get with the CZ 135mm f/1.8 lens. The puppy is a major ace-in-the-hole. It also weighs nearly 34 ounces! That is one heavy prime. You do not tote it as a "walk-around."

    Whereas, as an anecdote, some Minolta-mount SLR glass carried over well to the SONY DSLR line ... some did not. The Tokina AF 20-35mm f/4 is one of those that lacks sharp focus. It looks fine on film, though. Why the change? (I wound up replacing it with the TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) and got a terrific lens in the bargain.) Then you have the Tokina AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (Model I), which works sharp and very well on both styles of cameras. Again, why? (shrug) Same manufacturer? Quite different results.

    The older (1994) TAMRON AF 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 "utility lens" did not migrate well to the SONY DSLR ... why? The TAMRON AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) works astoundingly well. Hey .. Di-II optimized! It should and does.

    Just because they had the mount, there was no guaranty that the glass would carry over. Oh sure, you hoped, but I spent many hours testing and determining which worked and which ... stayed on as "the film lenses."

    Do you happen to remember the older TAMRON SP AF 28-105mm f/2.8 LD lens? The darn thing weighed 35 ounces ... and it had an 82mm-filter on it.



    I mean that size of first-element weighs quite a bit. When I placed it on the Canon EOS 20D, back in 2006 ... the camera had incredibly bad focus response ... but, on the new EOS-3 35mm-film SLR ... it was tack sharp. What gives? Both cameras are manufactured by Canon, right?

    Well, I took it into the repair depot, under TAMRON's six-year warranty, and found out that the focus circuitry in the lens needed to be updated, to accept digital focusing signals. The change was made and the lens worked as designed.

    THAT, my friend, could be precisely why your older TAMRON lenses did not respond to your new camera. If they needed the update ... it explains a lot. I mean, I had no idea this was even a problem at the time. I was lucky to have found a technician aware of it and capable of making the modification and "upgrade." (I documented the experience back in the Canon DSLR forum, around March or April 2006.)

    But ... hey, you have all the answers, Jim ... pay no attention to that man under the focusing cloth.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 05-19-2009 at 08:21 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

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post

    Studio/Portrait:
    24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 90mm f/2.8, 135mm f/1.8, 180mm f/3.5 & Studio lighting setup & Filter bags (~$6000)
    This is a bit off topic but:
    Do the MinO 24 and 28 really do any better on crop sensors than the Tamron 17-50? I know the 24 is considered pretty good, but the 28 is only considered OK. The 17-50 is considered great, but maybe that is "great for a zoom," and the primes are worth while.



    I agree with Don that some of that stuff isn't going to sell for enough to make it worthwhile. But some of it will. The 9000s sell for a bit, and some of those Minolta primes mentioned above (mino and sony f/1.4) as well.

    Still not enough to buy the CZ 24-70.

    I agree with TenD that Don has a lot of overlap, and that, as Don now tells people, spending a bit more up front is way better than buying a mediocre lens after another. But I think Tamron is much better on Sony than it is on Canon, because of the built in AF and IS. And to be honest, one of the reasons I left Sony was because there aren't Sony equivalents to the Tamron without spending a whole lot more. It is tough to choose between the Canon 10-22 for $700 and a 3rd party for $500. But with Sony you have the 28-75 Tamron vs the 24-70CZ with a $1000 price difference, so the choice is a bit different.
    Jason Hamilton
    Selective Frame

    EOS 5D - Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 35 f/2, EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II, EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 (with EOS adapter), 430EX, Canon S90
    Nikon FE - Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI'd, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI, F to EF adapter, 2xVivitar 285, other lighting stuff
    Mamiya C220 - 80mm f/2.8

    Gear List flickr

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Well, I took it into the repair depot, under TAMRON's six-year warranty, and found out that the focus circuitry in the lens needed to be updated, to accept digital focusing signals. The change was made and the lens worked as designed.
    I guess that's part of my point, Don, my lenses are not Di II or digi anything but they all work well on my digital bodies, and they worked well on my EOS 2 and 3 film bodies, no bringing them in to Canon, no firmware, they just work, and work very well.

    My film Tamron 28-200 was sold within 4 months of purchasing it, in 1996. It was slow to focus and the output was of generally poor quality. I tried another Tamron product last year, 28-300 XR Di VR Aspherical Blah blah. Downright poor IQ, not even close to anything in my bag. I was hoping for a slightly lower quality all in one to take with me while I was at work, it was sold about a month after I purchased it. I couldn't stand the output, it didn't hold up at all to any kind of scrutiny.

    I can't stand the thought of trying another Tammy and having the same kind of disappointment. I just wait and pony up the bucks, even if it means selling some other stuff on eBay. The IQ is worth it to me, the focusing speed is worth it to me, the build quality is worth it to me. The weight? well that just comes with the territory, sux but I live with it.
    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
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    You bought the wrong lens for IQ (although I'm sure you knew buying a super-zoom)

    IMO, the best Tamron lenses IQwise are the 17-50mm, 70-200mm and some would probably argue the 90mm and 28-75mm.

    AF wise, speaking for the first three, the 17-50mm is quite fast, buthe 70-200 and 90 are terribly slow.
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Red face Separating the glass ...

    Jason (and others interested)

    I have modified my Gear List with a red asterisk to reflect the particular lenses that are kind of out of the running on the digital bodies and had to be replaced with new versions for their particular focal length. I hope this helps to clear up any apparent confusion as to why I have several near same focal length lenses. It is like a whole different hobby looking back on film photography. Shooting techniques are similar, but that is about where it ends, as image production is entirely different.

    As you have correctly pointed out, the mere cost of trying to sell these "film" lenses makes it rather prohibitive and it would not make up near the difference in acquiring new, high-end glass to replace it. It is a vain hope, I know, that SONY should reduce the price of its lenses ... but, who knows? It is their call.

    I guess I wonder why this separation is all that important, but it has been made and on we go? Know anyone who needs Canon parts? I would love for someone to make use of this "extra" stuff.

    BTW: In respect to the Minolta AF 28mm f/2.8 49mm-filter lens ... I have owned that lens since 1985 ... 20-years before the invention of the 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. It is a short, easy lens to work with, in the studio. No matter how far I place it from the subject, it is ALWAYS 28mm. A zoom lens can change quite easily, as you well know. Over the past year, I have sold off my two Minolta 50mm lenses (f/1.7 & f/1.4) and hopefully others can make good use of them in their low-light and studio applications. I would still like to get my hands on a Minolta 35mm f/2 lens ... but, they are scarce as hen's teeth, these days, and people want too much for them. I have a feeling I will wind up settling for the SONY 35mm f/1.4 G, which is far more than I want to pay. For now, it can wait.

    As it stands, I am debating the SIGMA 20mm f/1.8 or 24mm f/1.8. The reports on them look sufficient to believe they will be good out-of-the-box, which has always been my major concern with SIGMA products. Every SIGMA lens that I have purchased has had a 100% record of being returned for a focal "tune-up."

    Jim ... I also found the 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 not to my liking, either. I had it "tuned-up" by the factory and then sold it to one of the other members of DCRP, who specifically requested it. Its performance is nothing like the 18-250mm, which is a far cry better, overall. In fact, the 18-250 is one of the best all-in-one lenses out there. I would recommend at least mounting one and giving it a shot or two. I think you will be pleasantly surprised with the results.

    I did a side-by-side (<- click this link), a while back, with some focusing charts ... and demonstrated the difference between the two lenses. The 18-250 was closer to the performance of the 28-75 than it was to its near brother, the 28-300.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 05-19-2009 at 09:03 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

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Jim ... I also found the 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 not to my liking, either. I had it "tuned-up" by the factory and then sold it to one of the other members of DCRP, who specifically requested it. Its performance is nothing like the 18-250mm, which is a far cry better, overall. In fact, the 18-250 is one of the best all-in-one lenses out there. I would recommend at least mounting one and giving it a shot or two. I think you will be pleasantly surprised with the results.
    I have actually been impressed with what I have seen of the 18-250, and I think it might suit me, the 90 macro is also pretty impressive. Optically Tamron makes some really decent lenses. The 17-50, the 28-25, the 90 macro, and the 70-200 are all considered excellent optically. With my first two Tamron purchases I have been scared away from them though.
    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.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Do not live in fear, Jim. That path only leads to ... "the dark side" ... I fear. Muahahahahaha
    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

Posting Permissions

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