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 9, 2006, 2:55 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

The Soccer World Cup is about the only time I have any patriotic sentiments at all. Other than that I consider myself a Cosmopolitan, not German. Portugal was pretty much mentally at the airport already anyway during today's game. But it was good for Germany that they managed that win. They really had a very upbeat, playful spirit this time, not the typical stoic, serious German mechanical attitude.

Back to lenses. I agree with everything you say. Below f4.5 the Tamron is softer. And that's exactly where the KM demonstrates its strength. At the longer tele-end, however, when the widest aperture becomes 5.6 and ultimately 6.3the Tamronis quite sharp even at its widest opening. I compared it with the Minolta 100-300 and the Tamron is indistinguishable.

But I have not found the difference in the color rendition. Can you show me some samples, side by side, same setting, where you have noticed that?

Rainer
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2006, 9:37 AM   #42
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default



rduve wrote:
Quote:
But I have not found the difference in the color rendition. Can you show me some samples, side by side, same setting, where you have noticed that?

Rainer
I have not really taken side by side same setting shots, but when I shoot the KM I run the in-camera settings on normal and the Tamron I normally boost the color and sharpness up one notch because in the past it has seemed a little flat to me compared to what I was getting with the KM. In well lit shots the difference may be minimal, but Istill prefer the overall results of the KM. I like the Tamron and like you I use that lens the majority of the time.When I don't need the range and for times I need a faster lens, the Tamron just can't hang with the KM. They are two different beasts and serve two different purposes. The shot I took below would not have come out as bright had I used the Tamron. It is shot at ISO 1600 and looks like daylight despite the fact that it was taken under basic stagelight conditions. I would not have even attempted this shot with the Tamron because I wouldn't chance spoiling the shot. I will try to post some comparisons between the two lenses, but if they are in well lit circumstances, I agree the differences may be like splitting hairs. I would not give either of these lenses up



Theshot belowI could not have taken with the KM because of its limited range. Notice how washed the color is on the tiger and I have the color and sharpness boosted up. Just kidding, it is a white tiger. :-)




meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2006, 12:10 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Yeah, I feel the same way. I would not want to miss any of them. They each of their unique personalities, just like my three boys.

:-)

Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2006, 1:46 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, I feel the same way. I would not want to miss any of them. They each of their unique personalities, just like my three boys.

:-)

Rainer

http://euromaninla.zoto.com/galleries
Teaching any of them to take pictures??


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 11:02 PM.