At 02:43 AM 9/26/04, Moose wrote:
>I'll let you and Walt go around on this one. :-)
[regarding the 28-205 Tamron]
My remarks are based on two examples in which the barrel/pincushion
distortions . . . depending on which end of the focal length range . . .
were particularly objectionable on top of their so-so contrast and
resolving power . . . all with a very salty price tag . . . my reasons for
denigrating them. Photodo doesn't think much of them either.
>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
I notice barrel and pincushion almost immediately because of the the high
percentage of rectilinear backgrounds I'm routinely shooting against . . .
manmade architectural stuff . . . along with architectural subject
material. and I've become hypersensitive to it. Lack of these distortions
are particularly important to me with wedding work. It's also one of my
pet peeves with zooms in general . . . barrel distortions at one end of the
focal length range that slide into pincushion at the other end of it seems
to be a common problem consumer grade variable aperture zoom lenses.
-- John Lind
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|