Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Question Worst lens ... and why?

    Okay, we are usually promoting using better glass on DCRP, but obviously we all have a "WORST" lens.

    The question really boils down to:

    Why do you INSIST on using it or keeping it around?

    Go ahead and please take a few minutes to consider this question and provide your BEST explanation, because interested minds want to know

    Participation is a good thing ... and we should see a lot of responses as everyone qualifies with this one ... and because, you have at least ONE lens, right? Thank you.
    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. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    So Calif
    Posts
    3,226
    Hope I don't have to be in the club to play.

    My worst is a T-mount Tele-Tokina 800mm f8-32, from the psychedelic '70's. It's 4 elements, 27 inches long, 7.7 lbs and looks like a telescope with a camera hanging off the back. I can't recall the last time I shot at f32 before this one...

    I'm keeping it because I've only had it a little while, it is "OK" IQ on smaller image sizes, and it was not too expensive. Some of my recent gallery posts use it.

    Next on the list would be the Adorama 500mm mirror.

    Both are fun, but they won't get me into National Geographic.
    Pentax K20D/K5/15/21/40/70/10-17/12-24, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5/150-500, Tamron 90 Macro/70-200 2.8, Canon SX20 IS/Elph 500HS
    (formerly Pentax 50 1.4/50-200/55-300/K100D, Sigma 18-50 2.8/70-300 APO, Tamron 28-75, Viv 800, Tele-Tokina 800, Canon S3 IS, Samsung L210)
    http://s133.photobucket.com/albums/q78/KylePix/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    So Calif
    Posts
    3,226
    No, I meant next worst lens I have...
    Pentax K20D/K5/15/21/40/70/10-17/12-24, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5/150-500, Tamron 90 Macro/70-200 2.8, Canon SX20 IS/Elph 500HS
    (formerly Pentax 50 1.4/50-200/55-300/K100D, Sigma 18-50 2.8/70-300 APO, Tamron 28-75, Viv 800, Tele-Tokina 800, Canon S3 IS, Samsung L210)
    http://s133.photobucket.com/albums/q78/KylePix/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    oooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..lol..

    pretty much anything adorama sucks

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    332
    Tamron 70-300 or 75 cant remembere, f4-5.6 1:2macro LD somethiing, lengthy name, this lens have terrible autofocus, struggles and then miss, even in bright sunlight. It has unbelievable amount of PF, and it is as soft as if you use a filter made of mineral water plastic bottle...
    dont take me seriously

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    So Calif
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by capedeci View Post
    Tamron 70-300 or 75 cant remembere, f4-5.6 1:2macro LD somethiing, lengthy name, this lens have terrible autofocus, struggles and then miss, even in bright sunlight. It has unbelievable amount of PF, and it is as soft as if you use a filter made of mineral water plastic bottle...
    I've seen good shots from that though PF has been noted by most users.
    Pentax K20D/K5/15/21/40/70/10-17/12-24, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5/150-500, Tamron 90 Macro/70-200 2.8, Canon SX20 IS/Elph 500HS
    (formerly Pentax 50 1.4/50-200/55-300/K100D, Sigma 18-50 2.8/70-300 APO, Tamron 28-75, Viv 800, Tele-Tokina 800, Canon S3 IS, Samsung L210)
    http://s133.photobucket.com/albums/q78/KylePix/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Red face Lately ... comparing shots

    I have been debating for the better part of the year about changing from my TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) to the SONY CZ 24-70mm f/2.8

    I know it sounds like a "no-brainer", but to be perfectly honest, the differences in performance are truly so close you really have to be desperate to find them, especially in light of the sheer weight of the two lenses and their overall cost for performance.

    While I do not have side-by-side comparison shots, what I do have are f/2.8 center and corners of the TAMRON. Even in crappy, indoor lighting, the TAMRON delivers what I feel is a full acceptable image, edge-to-edge.

    If anyone has done a comparison series between these two lenses, I would be happy to hear about what you have found. I am at the point of locating the Zeiss lens and doing the side-by-side center and corner examination, just to put my mind at ease and settle this once and for all.

    Just for another consideration, I have looked at the SIGMA AF 24-70mm f/2.8 DG EX IF HSM, also, finding it coming up a little shy in the 24mm corners. They are significantly softer than the TAMRON, at 28mm f/2.8, otherwise the SIGMA is truly a contender, too.

    Don't get me wrong ... I am not dissatisfied with the TAMRON's capability. Far from it. It has been a brilliant lens for the past two years, but if I am moving up to "pro" level glass, I want to make sure I am buying into a better result ... not just more of the same, in a heavier shell.

    Thanks for your contribution, if you make one.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 05-07-2010 at 10:17 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. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    http://www.kurtmunger.com/tamron_sony_28_75mmid141.html

    Here you go, Don. Although it's a Tamron/Sony comparison he added shots from the Zeiss in the "Bonus" section at the bottom.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Thumbs up Thanks. Peter

    In a way, the entire review seems more disturbing than before.

    Someone really needs to redo the test on all of them (TAMRON/SONY 28-75; SIGMA 24-70; SONY CZ 24-70), together ... to clear all this up. A "shoot-out", if you will.

    The nice part, though, is knowing that any of them are very capable of delivering the goods. I am beginning to wonder is a 28-75 is simply the answer ... nice and cheap, just the way I like 'em.

    Here is a comparison of the SONY vs SIGMA 24-70 f/2.8 ... a true battle of light management ... again, with no clear victor.

    BEST ... WORST ... pick your poison!
    Last edited by DonSchap; 05-08-2010 at 10:36 AM.
    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. #10
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by SONYNUT View Post
    oooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..lol..

    pretty much anything adorama sucks
    Well, that's put a smile on my face and a spring in my step..............
    Sincerely

    Helen Oster
    Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador


    helen.oster@adoramacamera.com
    www.adorama.com

Posting Permissions

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