Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 17, 2006, 4:36 PM   #91
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

...and the other lens:
Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2006, 4:44 PM   #92
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

The second image looks a tad sharper (if the focus point was the same). For example, the lettering on the side of the green trash can).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2006, 5:21 PM   #93
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 65
Default

The 2nd is the KM 28-75mm f2.8 lens
tango_28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2006, 5:47 PM   #94
Member
 
Cavemandude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 62
Default

Ya, the first one onthe car shotsand the second one on the garbage can shotsare the Konica Minolta 28-75mm even though they have a file name with"Tamron" in them which was probably to throw people off. These sure aren't very good examples to show off the good orbad of either lens.

I've seen plenty of impressive shots taken with the Konica Minolta 28-75mm lens and some pretty poor quality ones taken with the Tamron. If I knew that I was not going to need a focal length beyond 75mm and had both of these lenses, I would never use the Tamron. If I knew I was not going to shoot beyond 210mm and had the time to switch lenses, I would go with the Konica Minolta 28-75mm f2.8 and the Minolta 70-210mm f4 Beercan.

Randy Wheeler
DnRedit.com
Cavemandude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2006, 6:41 PM   #95
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Cavemandude wrote:
Quote:
Ya, the first one onthe car shotsand the second one on the garbage can shotsare the Konica Minolta 28-75mm even though they have a file name with"Tamron" in them which was probably to throw people off. These sure aren't very good examples to show off the good orbad of either lens.

I've seen plenty of impressive shots taken with the Konica Minolta 28-75mm lens and some pretty poor quality ones taken with the Tamron. If I knew that I was not going to need a focal length beyond 75mm and had both of these lenses, I would never use the Tamron. If I knew I was not going to shoot beyond 210mm and had the time to switch lenses, I would go with the Konica Minolta 28-75mm f2.8 and the Minolta 70-210mm f4 Beercan.

Randy Wheeler
DnRedit.com

It's actually exactly the opposite and I did not switch the names to confuse anyone. I didn't realize that the names of the files show up when you point the mouse at them.
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2006, 6:45 PM   #96
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

You also left the EXIF in them (which gives it away).

P.S.

Although you could swap the EXIF between images to really confuse people (save and restore it from both shots using Exifer, or use one of the EXIF editing tools around. :-)

But, if you want a fair "blind" test without any bias from looking at the EXIF, it's probably better to strip it out

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2006, 6:58 PM   #97
Member
 
Cavemandude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 62
Default

Oh well, hope you canreturn the KM lens, looks like you got a bad one. Guess you'll need to do more tests to make sure.

How does the EXIF give it away?

Randy Wheeler
DnRedit.com




Cavemandude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2006, 7:28 PM   #98
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Cavemandude wrote:
Quote:
Oh well, hope you canreturn the KM lens, looks like you got a bad one. Guess you'll need to do more tests to make sure.

How does the EXIF give it away?

Randy Wheeler
DnRedit.com




No, I am not returning it. It's a great lens. I am just glad that it doesn't blow my Tamron away on all cylinders. I am just trying to provide a service here by comparing the two lenses under the same conditions. I am not partial one way or another. I am sure you have seen bad pictures with the Tamron, Randy, and great ones with the KM. But do you own both and have done side to side comparisons? That's what I am doing here, trying to be totally unbiased. But so far, from what I have seen, the differences are ranging from subtle to unnoticable. That of course would be different in lighting situations where I really need that 2.8 aperture, like in tango-28's shot earlier. Here are two more comparisons. Both shots at f4.5, the Tamron's widest aperture at 50mm where it tends to go a little softer. Guess again. I am also following up with crops of the same pics. Let me know which other setting you'd like me to shoot in and I will take some more.



Shot 1


Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2006, 7:29 PM   #99
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Shot 2




Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2006, 7:33 PM   #100
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Crop 1


Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:20 AM.