John A. Lind wrote:
>[snip]
>Absolutely . . .
>Tamrona, Kiron, Sigma, Tokina, Vivitar, etc. . . .
>They all make . . . or made . . . a number of stellar lenses. They all
>make . . . or made . . . some truly abysmal lenses. The quality range in
>optics and build among them is enormous. Not only can price can be
>deceiving, the specific line name can be as well. Don't count on markings
>such as "SP LD" or "AT-X" as a guarantee of high performance, or even above
>average.
>
Not a guarantee, but an indicator of higher likelihood than would
otherwise be the case. If otherwise flying blind, buying an SP or AT-X
increases the chances of getting a great lens. Conversely, the lack of
such a designation, absent further info, increases the chances of poor
performance, but doesn't guarantee it.
>It is not uncommon for an older design to be much, much better than a
>current one that replaced it. An older Tamron Adapatall II lens and its
>current successor is good example. Tamron made a 35-105mm f/2.8 SP LD
>sometime during the latter 1980's and into the 1990's. This is a truly
>fine lens with well above average build and very excellent optics,
>including bokeh, throughout its aperture and focal length range.
>
I certainly agree there, one of my favorites.
> 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.... <rant snipped> ... 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. :-)
>If a primary goal is having the best glass, doing some research about which
>specific lenses are excellent in optical and build qualities is essential.
>
Absolutely! And this is a great place to learn about the good lenses.
Not generic questions like "Are all ____ lenses better than all ____
lenses." Ask about specific lenses or focal length/speed, or zoom range
or specific use and you will receive a great deal of useful info from a
vast well of knowledge and experience.
Another area of fuzziness is in definition of quality performance. For
example, the Tamron 28-200/3.8-5.6 Aspherical LD (IF) has more barrel
distortion at the wide end and pincushion at the long end than some
users would find acceptable. And it's pretty slow at the long end.
However, I never even noticed the linear distortion for the first few
rolls where I used it because of the kind of subjects I usually shoot.
Given that it is sharp and the really small size and weight, it has been
a winner for me.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|