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 Jul 8, 2006, 1:59 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

What more can one expect from a lens as far as color, sharpness, and range are concerned? I am (almost) seeing everything I want in this picture.



Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries

PS: Enough now. It's overkill again, I know....but I LOVE my Tamron 28-300XR.
Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2006, 7:12 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
cope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 718
Default

I haven't seen a single post where a Tamron 28-300 owner said he regretted the purchase. Canadian Club over at dpr probably had his welded to his camera. I have never seen a photo he took with any other lens.
cope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2006, 11:59 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

cope wrote:
Quote:
I haven't seen a single post where a Tamron 28-300 owner said he regretted the purchase. Canadian Club over at dpr probably had his welded to his camera. I have never seen a photo he took with any other lens.

same here. After getting some spots on my CCD again, I think I'll leave it on almost permanently. Especially since I did some comparison tests with the expensive KM 28-75 2.8, and found that other than being faster it does not outshine the Tamron 28-300.

Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2006, 12:42 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
Default

rduve.......do you like your Tamron 28-300?:lol:
nooner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2006, 1:24 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

nooner wrote:
Quote:
rduve.......do you like your Tamron 28-300?:lol:

...mmmmh, not sure...let me think about it and I will get back to you. How about I post some sample pictures? Wouldn't that be a novelty and quite out of character?



BTW, you said in an earlier thread in yourtypicaltongue-in-cheek mannerthat in your opinion the KM 28-75 f2.8 took clearly better pictures than the Tamron. I could not find that based on my tests. Do you have some comparisons to demonstrate how you came to that conclusion?

Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2006, 8:33 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
Default

Easy...I was just joking around. If like the 28-300 good. I don't need post anything to form my own opinions. Your point of view is apparent. I won't post anymore replies if you're upset. See ya:!:
nooner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2006, 11:06 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

cope wrote:
Quote:
I haven't seen a single post where a Tamron 28-300 owner said he regretted the purchase. Canadian Club over at dpr probably had his welded to his camera. I have never seen a photo he took with any other lens.

The only people I have heard complain about it don't own one. While others complain about not owning one. Even if it is not the perfect lens, you can't beat value and the range. I am amazed that there are still enough of the old models around.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 9, 2006, 12:35 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

nooner wrote:
Quote:
Easy...I was just joking around. If like the 28-300 good. I don't need post anything to form my own opinions. Your point of view is apparent. I won't post anymore replies if you're upset. See ya:!:



Nooner,

Naw, not at all upset.But Iremembered your comment in the other thread: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=84: "Interesting. I've never heard anyone claim to be get the same quality photos with the Tamron 28-300 and the 28-75. I've got both of them and I can't say that. But, what do I know........" This was in response to me saying that I was getting similarly good results with the Tamron compared to the samples shotsfrom the KM 28-75 f2.8 that had been posted. In fact, your comment might have been what finally made me get that lens since I thought it must be distinctly better. After receivingthe KM 28-75I painstakingly ran and posted a lot of comparison shots, and found that both lenses produce very similar results.Since I did not hear back from you afterward, I was just curious if you have had results different from mine when you compared the two lenses since you also own them both.I wanted to see what I might be missing here. Can you post some comparisons (other than at the widest apertures at whichtheKM is noticably sharper)and point out where those quality differences are? Not challenging you. Just curious.

Rainer
http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries

PS: Sorry about England in the World Cup, by the way. That was a heartbreaker. At least my German guys took care of Portugal earlier today.

PPS: I am still happy that I got the KM 28-75. It is excellent for low light, but too limited as a walkabout lens.

rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 9, 2006, 1:17 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
nooner wrote:
Quote:
Easy...I was just joking around. If like the 28-300 good. I don't need post anything to form my own opinions. Your point of view is apparent. I won't post anymore replies if you're upset. See ya:!:

Naw, not at all upset. I was just curious if you have had results different from mine when you compared the two lenses since you also own them both.

Rainer
Well here's my unbiased conclusion: I love both lenses, but there are differences. Obviously the KMdoesn't have the range of the Tamron so that makes me use the Tamron more often since I don't have a better lens in the ultrazoom range. Likewise the Tamron can't compete in low light so in those situations I use only the KM or my Tamron 20-40 2.7-3.5. In well lit situations both lenses come close, but the color rendition seems better on the KM.

One thing that bothers me about the Tamron 28-300 is the fact that it is pretty useless at max aperature as you have also realized. I'm not sure why it goes to 3.5 when anything below 4.5 seems soft or out of focus. Of course as soon as you extend the range you lose max aperature anyway. I can shoot the KM at max aperature and still get sharp photos.


meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 9, 2006, 1:22 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
PS: Sorry about England in the World Cup, by the way. That was a heartbreaker. At least my German guys took care of Portugal earlier today.

It's a good thing I'm not big on soccerotherwise my Portugese "meanstreak" would come out. Besides, the Germans have an unfair height advantage.


[align=center][/align]

meanstreak 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 1:26 AM.