The A 35-70/4 is surprisingly good optically, but I do have to admit
that it's the most plasticky lens I own.
Really? Plastickly? For such a heavy lens? Granted, the exterior
rings are all hard black plastic, but the barrel and all internals
are metal. Maybe it's the glass that makes it
My sample of the A35-70, purchased used and showing obvious
signs of use, has more slop in focusing than most of my
primes, but is tighter than any of my other zooms. This is one
lens I regard as more than adequate in build quality, despite
the plastic bits.
Keith Whaley wrote:
Fred wrote:
The A
For me, constant 2.8 is important. I find that many receptions are
quite dim, and focusing is a bit tougher.
True. Once in a while, I wish my A 28-135/4 were a bit faster. The
f/4 spec is fine outside most of the time, and inside, when I'm
often using flash with it (set at f/8 usually), it's
My sample of the A35-70, purchased used and showing obvious signs
of use, has more slop in focusing than most of my primes, but is
tighter than any of my other zooms. This is one lens I regard as
more than adequate in build quality, despite the plastic bits.
Yes, I'd say that the build of my
I thought all Pentax zooms of the A series and later felt like the A
35-70, until I got a KEH bargain condition A 24-50.
What a difference! Quite heavy and solid, with a beautiful focusing and
zoom feel. Definitely more metal and/or glass.
Do the well regarded Pentax A zooms, like the 35-105
I thought all Pentax zooms of the A series and later felt like the
A 35-70, until I got a KEH bargain condition A 24-50. [snip] Do
the well regarded Pentax A zooms, like the 35-105 or the 70-210,
have that heavy, smooth quality feel, or is their build quality
more like the 35-70?
The A
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Bruce Dayton wrote:
does alter things a bit. A constant aperture 2.8 24-90 would be nice.
I assume that this has to be longer and heavier (and more expensive)
than the 28-70/2.8. Are you sure it would be nice? :-)))
Kostas
I am using a Tamron 28-75/2.8 now. For DSLR 1.5 crop factor, the 24
would be nicer.
We were talking about a lens for wedding photography, not a consumer
zoom.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Wednesday, February 25, 2004, 2:33:23 AM, you wrote:
KK On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Bruce Dayton wrote:
does alter
Fred wrote:
The A 24-50 is a constant f/4 and has the A contact, and seems to
be built nearly to the M 24-35 standard, _much_ better than the A
35-70, for instance, in terms of build quality.
Ironically, I find the A35-70 to be a much better lens optically.
The A 35-70/4 is
At 20:45 25/02/04, you wrote:
Anyone ever used the Tamron 28-105 f/2.8? I've heard diametrically
opposing opinions of it.
I have one. I use it for my Minolta. I found it to be quite nice, not too
sharp, but certainly not soft. It's great for weddings because it does not
render overly fine
Anyone ever used the Tamron 28-105 f/2.8? I've heard diametrically
opposing opinions of it.
Tamron was making some laughable SP lenses in recent history, and the
SP35-105/2.8 SP28-105/2.8 are the most expensive junk thus far (I had the
35-105/2.8). Fortunately, they learnt from their huge
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:39:03 -0500, you wrote:
Nikon's 24-120 is reportedly a big seller (and very popular with the
wedding shooters). There are a couple of options in the 24-135 range,
too (Sigma, Tamron).
And the Pentax 24-90 is in the ballpark, too :)
The Tamron 24-135 handles well, is
John Mustarde:
The Tamron 24-135 handles well, is fairly sharp at all f-stops, and
the magnification factor is handy, but it's not well suited for
outdoor pics on a sunny day even with its tulip hood.
Flares badly, to say the least.
http://www.photolin.com/misc/flare.jpg
Oh where's
From: Joe Wilensky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
While the M 24-50 has a mediocre reputation,
the A 24-50 was a new
design (same design was used for the F 24-50) and I have one.
I didn't know there was an M24-50! Seems odd that there would be
both a 24-35 and a 24-50 in the same series. In general that
What mystifies me about zooms is that there is no 35 to 100 or 120
to be had. That would, seemingly, be a wedding pro's dream zoom.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part:
I don't know if anybody has ever TRIED to make a really good 24-50 zoom.
Pros don't seem to have used such a thing. Nikon made a
Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What mystifies me about zooms is that there is no 35 to 100 or 120
to be had. That would, seemingly, be a wedding pro's dream zoom.
Seems to me a 28-105 covers that range quite nicely.
Nikon's 24-120 is reportedly a big seller (and very popular with the
As well as the A28-135/4. A tank of a lens, but a good performer by most
accounts.
chris
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Bill Owens wrote:
Seems to me a 28-105 covers that range quite nicely.
Bill
What mystifies me about zooms is that there is no 35 to 100 or 120
to be had. That would,
As well as the A28-135/4. A tank of a lens, but a good performer
by most accounts.
And my favorite as a wedding lens...
Fred
The A 24-50 is a constant f/4 and has the A contact, and seems to
be built nearly to the M 24-35 standard, _much_ better than the A
35-70, for instance, in terms of build quality.
Ironically, I find the A35-70 to be a much better lens optically.
The A 35-70/4 is surprisingly good optically,
For me, constant 2.8 is important. I find that many receptions are
quite dim, and focusing is a bit tougher. Also, the DSLR 1.5 factor
does alter things a bit. A constant aperture 2.8 24-90 would be nice.
Bruce
Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 6:39:03 PM, you wrote:
MR Bill Owens [EMAIL
20 matches
Mail list logo
