>John Hudson <xyyc@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> I also had the opportunity to observe other 16"x20" b/w prints made with
>> Tamron 28/200mm lenses on Nikon bodies [...] The prints I made from my
>> 50/1.2 lens were vastly superior to the ones made from having used the
>> Tamron 28/200. "Vastly superior" is somewhat of an understatement! They
>> were just fuzzy and muddy in comparison!
>
>I was thinking about the Tamron 28/200 a couple of years ago, until I took
>some trial shots with one. Even on 5x7 prints the Tamron was noticeably
>worse than a Nikkor 50/1.4 lens. (And this was an *ugly* 50mm lens).
>
>Alasdair
Seems a touch unfair - anyone's 50mm or at least a 'standard lens' in the
range 40-55 should always be extremely good and a 1.4 version (or 1.2, or
1.0!) even better. The Canon AF 50/1.8 I own is a cheap plastic number but
very sharp. A Nikkor 50/1.4 should be MUCH better than a Tamron long zoom.
The Nikkor 80-200 didn't used to be all that good back in the pre-AF days.
Andrew
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|