I've no interest in going round and round on this, but anyhoo...
My experience, and even Gary's test data, refute much of John's hyperbolic rant
regarding the 28-105/2.8 Tamron. While it certainly has its shortcomings, to
say it should only be used as a doorstop is a bit much.
But that's his opinion. Obviouslly, mine is different. While I have the
highly-regarded 35-80/2.8 Zuiko and the generally respected 35-105/3.5~4.5
Zuiko, if I'm out with one camera and one lens for the possibility of some
casual or incidental photography, the Tamron in question is my lens of choice.
I think it does just fine for that purpose, and I really don't care what others
may think of it. If I cared what people thought about me, my demeanor, or my
possessions, I would have lived an entirely different life and probably had a
hell of a lot less fun.
I have no problem with "architectural backgrounds" being distorted or with
pleasing anyone but myself with my photographs. John may have such a problem.
John would only use my lens on the floor by the door, and I would rob liquor
stores and mug Girl Scouts for cookie money before I would shoot weddings. To
each his own.
I'll post the same link I did a week or so ago to some of those casual and
incidental type photographs recently taken with this lens. Want to see some
"architectural distortion?" Look at the bench the woman is sitting on in the
last picture, the sundown fishing shot. But the bench ain't the subject of the
photograph. This shot was taken at 28mm @ f/5.6. Anyone who finds that amount
of distortion intolerable should immediately throw out all wide angle lenses
with a focal length shorter than 35mm.
The picture of the heron was shot at 105mm @ f/4 in very low light about 10
minutes before the fishing picture. The actual slide doesn't look the least
bit shabby in terms of detail, sharpness and contrast, particularly considering
the conditions under which it was taken.
As for the leaping dolphin shot, I don't remember any details, except a "you're
a dirty old man" look from my wife. I don't believe there are any
architectural distortions in that one.
http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photos.html-.html
Like my sainted and long dead dear old grandmother used to say, smoke ?em if
you got em, dance with who brung ya, and don't speak ill of another man's
choice of photographic equipment, cars, women, or hat, unless you are at least
an arm's length away.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message from Moose : --------------
>
> John A. Lind wrote:
>
> >[snip]
> > It was
> >replaced in their "top end" line of lenses at some time during the latter
> >1990's by a 28-105mm f/2.8 SP LD.... ... IMHO it's
> >a good doorstop. Not picking on Tamron in particular . . . examples of
> >this can be found among all the brands.
> >
> I'll let you and Walt go around on this one. :-)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|