View Full Version : trying out new old lenses (Don's Tamron + 100-200)

10-05-2009, 07:53 PM
#1 - Don's Tamron 70-300 LD 1:2 'macro' zoom. Geez Don, did you ever give it a try? All wrapped up in its original plastic, boxed with papers intact.. other than sporting a UV filter and Alpha lens-cap :cool: it might never have left the box. The light was fading as I gave it a whirl, so just a couple testers for now - handheld at iso1600 (flower) / iso400 (fence). Both RAW images picasafied during upload, no other PP.



#2 - a Minolta 100-200 fresh from auction. This is a lens has lived a full life :eek:, with some grit in the zoom ring and a fine scuff on the front element. Despite this, and for the price, it seems to be holding up well. Perhaps not well enough to dethrone my 70-210/3.5-4.5, but we'll see about that. This also RAW+picasa, nothing else.


10-05-2009, 08:24 PM
#1 - Don's Tamron 70-300 LD 1:2 'macro' zoom. Geez Don, did you ever give it a try? All wrapped up in its original plastic, boxed with papers intact.. other than sporting a UV filter and Alpha lens-cap :cool: it might never have left the box.


I never said it was a bad lens. In fact, my ol' buddy 'Rooz' was shooting off his mouth that I had too many lenses in my inventory, so I happily selected it as the "obvious" candidate for ... someone else to make use of, since it rarely ever saw the light of day.

Call it my version of "recycling" if you want. It truly is in like new condition, like most of my other glass items. I treat them like they were ... GLASS! Who knew? Most of my lenses all have their original containers and paperwork. The cameras, too.

I am glad it arrived to you safely and in good working order. Again, you did well in your contest participation and thankfully ("lurkers", take heed), sometimes participation pays off. ;) :p I honestly do not know how I could make a better point of that.

Give the lens a good work-out and go get them there "eagles" you stated that you needed that "extra range" to snap on. Personally, even with the 200-500mm, my eagle-shots have been a challenge because of location, location ... location. :mad:

10-05-2009, 09:05 PM
Certainly not a bad lens, there are plenty worse. It's just not a great lens, but why would you expect taht at $150. Use it, learn with it, and then it'll be time to move up!

10-05-2009, 09:07 PM
yeah...yeah...blame the nikon guy. lol
jim, they say the value of an item is utterly dependant on the price paid. you paid exactly the right price for it...that's all that matters. :D

10-05-2009, 09:09 PM
And I never said you said it was bad.. I just wonder if you used it at all, it's so fresh :) but I know you did, and with your big tele-zooms you definitely moved on. We'll just see what critters pop into my viewfinder; I had a hummer in my sights today with the 100-200, turned out I was in M mode so they're overexposed :( we'll see if the RAW images kept enough detail for me to pull back. Ah, why wasn't I shooting M with a faster shutter??

10-05-2009, 09:24 PM
You could also try S, shutter priority mode. ;)

10-05-2009, 09:24 PM
I am hardly one to tell people how to shoot. I developed my own preferences from doing it with a light meter in one hand and a 35mm-film SLR in the other. I notice too many retakes when I let the camera run its own course ... but there is no harm in finding out what solution it selects in the three other modes (P, A, S). Work that rig ... the price of "film" is right, that's for sure. ;)

Also, if you bracket ... you can get a margin of safety recovery there, too.

Just a thought ... and just shoot straight! LOL

10-06-2009, 06:03 AM
I was on M for a family dinner in a dim Mexican cantina. One margararita too many I guess, forgot to reset - the price one pays for a great meal with a fun family! :) Places like that are ideal for a 17-xx lens, that's for sure - my 50 couldn't handle the wide view.

10-06-2009, 07:19 AM
Well, considering a 50mm on a APS-C effectively becomes a 75mm (short-telephoto class) ... you have a point. Even a 28mm is effectively 44mm (normal class). A decent bag of glass becomes rather dubious, because you just cannot back up.

The 17-xx lens is a good interior lens, but I have to admit, if you really do not want to move, the new SIGMA AF 10-20mm f/3.5 DC EX is effectively 15-30mm ... and that is a real "group catcher."

As a head-on, portrait lens, though ... it can make everyone look like they ate really well, for quite a while. 49552

10-07-2009, 06:08 PM
My wife politely asked me to crop a vacation shot, where she was sitting in the corner of the frame shot with the 14mm. Wide-angle lenses and flattering portraits are indeed not companions! :o

10-07-2009, 08:56 PM
I tellya, the one lens that has me furious is my "China-made" SONY SAL-50F14.

The aperture is lagging, effectively leaving it WIDE OPEN during any aperture I set in the camera. Doesn't matter if it is on the A700 or the A850 ... same response ... retarded. If I use the "optical preview" ... on all my other lenses ... you press the button and get instantaneous response ... on the 50mm .... ... uh, now. That "uh" means wide open aperture for long enough that the image is overexposed, when the shutter release is pressed.

I sent it to Laredo for correction ... they sent it back ... "problem not found." Like I said ... most disappointing :mad: Obviously SONY is not going to be able to repair it for me. I guess it's off to United Camera & Binocular, tomorrow. Maybe ... a THIRD-PARTY can get it done! Sheesh! :(

10-11-2009, 11:04 AM
One thing I can relate to is going with heavier glass. I have a TAMRON Adaptall2 MF 200-500mm f/6.9 lens. That bad boy weighs a whopping 96 oz (6-lbs)! I mean, if you want to know why lightweight lenses are the better way to rock ... this one will teach you quick.

You certainly can not wear it around your neck, for significant chance of injury. A shoulder sling is about the only practical way to lug it, without a backpack. A sling bag would be torture of a new kind, if you could even get it in one. The lens is easily 16-inches long and all metal.

I know what you are thinking ... "Why in the **** would Don buy such a lens?"

"Well, I had this need of a boat anchor and ..." No ... I actually got it for all of $27! Honestly ... I did not yet own a far superior TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD (42oz), yet {this lens alone weighs more than the camera and the newer lens combined!}, and I had all the TAMRON Adaptall2 collars to make it work on ANY camera I had ... so, why not? It was a lot cheaper than anything else in that range, believe me. It shoots a dandy shot, when focused properly. And NO ... you do not want to use it with a ball tripod-mount. You risk losing a finger or two.

You are looking at 136 ounces of camera and manual lens! :eek:

10-11-2009, 11:54 AM
:pthat nothing:p

10-11-2009, 12:07 PM
Well ... I was just sayin' ... heavy is a ... well, you know. :p

You already know what happens when we start talking about telescopes ... man oh man ... get a truck mount.

10-11-2009, 01:00 PM
i tell ya..i love that m1 mount...it is balanced to a t..nothing to undo to move..just move it..the friction set is great.. i machined a little longer dovetail plate so my 600 is balanced perfectly..(just needed a 1/2 more due to the weight of the added grip and battery)

if you are trying to get a shot of birds in flight ect..it is great..
i can even drop my c6 telecope on there if i wanted a 1500mm lens:D