ovaltinemilo
Senior Member
then tt sounds bad...
I've got a unhealthy mindset/mentality
- Thread starter NikonMI6
- Start date
then tt sounds bad...
night86mare
Deregistered
it is not fair to compare a telephoto zoom to a normal zoom, i guess.
just like it won't be fair to compare a prime lens to a zoom lens, or a long prime to a short prime. the engineering required for different focal length + focal length ranges can differ.
for example, i would be much more forgiving to mtf figures on ultrawide zooms as opposed to normal zooms.
your tamron seems like it has backfocusing problems. it could be, or really anything. riotvan uses this lens, and it works well.
allenleonhart
Senior Member
ah ok. time to send it for 1 last servicing with tamron bah:think:
thanks guys for the response.. 
can someone clarify the fact that why is it when someone
recommend lenses, somehow the ans will be a lens with constant aperture? or is it just because
that they are popular and expensive that's why they are good?
imagine nikon or canon comes up with another lens that has the same focal length and produces
the exact same image quality as 70-200 f2.8 but make it a variable aperture so it is more affordable.. :lovegrin:
can someone clarify the fact that why is it when someone recommend lenses, somehow the ans will be a lens with constant aperture? or is it just because
that they are popular and expensive that's why they are good?
imagine nikon or canon comes up with another lens that has the same focal length and produces
the exact same image quality as 70-200 f2.8 but make it a variable aperture so it is more affordable.. :lovegrin:
night86mare
Deregistered
thanks guys for the response..
recommend lenses, somehow the ans will be a lens with constant aperture? or is it just because
that they are popular and expensive that's why they are good?
usually in singapore, this is the case.
the mentality is that you must get the BEST gear, and BEST = most expensive.
never mind that most people out there don't even really use the f/2.8, other than to take landscapes wide open at night, the horror.
allenleonhart
Senior Member
for me its the kiasu feel. i'll recommend the sigma 17-50 2.8 or tammy cause its cheap and handy. u never know when the moment is more important, especially in low light. constant 2.8 is handy for situations like that where image quality doesnt really matter i guess.
yet if i were to say how often i use 2.8? not much. i prefer f4 anytime. its better to be safe than sorry
yet if i were to say how often i use 2.8? not much. i prefer f4 anytime. its better to be safe than sorry
but we do have to admit that those f2.8 are really good lenses.. or maybe it is because some feels that if they decided to save some money and get a value for money lens they may regret and end up feeling that they should have just go with the better choice (in this case the f2.8 lenses)?
hmmm.. u tried the sigma 17-50? is it good? how is it compared to tamron..
and i agree.. kiasu mentality plays a part too..allenleonhart
Senior Member
but we do have to admit that those f2.8 are really good lenses.. or maybe it is because some feels that if they decided to save some money and get a value for money lens they may regret and end up feeling that they should have just go with the better choice (in this case the f2.8 lenses)?
hmmm.. u tried the sigma 17-50? is it good? how is it compared to tamron..
nope didnt try. took tammy for the price.
the only reason i can see why ppl want f2.8 lenses is because they are fast adn the moment> the quality. at f2.8, the dof is really shallow. if i want a sharp face i'll be at f8 at least. perhaps some to boost ego. but it eventually boils down to what u need rather than what u want.
thanks guys for the response..
recommend lenses, somehow the ans will be a lens with constant aperture? or is it just because
that they are popular and expensive that's why they are good?
imagine nikon or canon comes up with another lens that has the same focal length and produces
the exact same image quality as 70-200 f2.8 but make it a variable aperture so it is more affordable.. :lovegrin:
i think it is best not to really recommend... bcos the user should research and decide... but i know doing all these takes time and most r lazy to do... but if u recommend wrongly, it is not good also... that guy might blame u...
Halfmoon
Senior Member
If he or she is too lazy to do the home work and people recommend..... then, he /she should blame himself for not doing his homework and not blame the one who recommend.... everyone's need are different, style, etc.....
night86mare
Deregistered
what is good?
if i shoot landscapes, f/2.8 lens will cost more, and will not have added benefit to me since i am shooting at f/8-f/11-f/16 or even f/22 most of the time.
good to show off?
good to put in signature?
maybe, but that is not my cup of tea.
A BIG aperture is always welcomed and appreciated by portrait shooters.
You didn't mentioned what type of shooter you are..
A BIG aperture allows faster shutter speed, hereby reducing chances of handshake blur, and it also produces a shallow DoF, which is "usually" a desirable feature for portraits.
So, A Large aperture lens is usually a "better" lens for portrait and sports shoot.
But they're less valuable to a landscape or macro shooter.
if no need to shoot at BIG aperture, then a constant max aperture lens is not necessarily better.
Last edited:
good in the sense that it satisfies more consumers and/or professional
photographer.. rarely encounter cases whereby a f2.8 lenses are crappy
and not worth the money.. I think u get what I mean..
allenleonhart
Senior Member
good in the sense that it satisfies more consumers and/or professional
photographer.. rarely encounter cases whereby a f2.8 lenses are crappy
and not worth the money.. I think u get what I mean..
i am not so trusting ... i go for review first even for those most famous Carl Zesis lens... and surprisingly sometimes these expensive CZ lenses do not get good reviews...
i must say branding and marketing really play a part... somehow many people will think u need a Mac , and CZ lenses are the best... ALL L lenses are good...
sometimes even with frens, speaking the truth hurts... even when the intention is to let them know the better, so that it will help them...
anyway, nvm...
word of mouth is really very impt.. and very powerful.. :x and those reviews are quite in
depth imo.. cos they really go down to 100% crop and study those photos very carefully
which i think is a bit too much? as consumer seldom uses 100% of the resolution of their
photos and actually those photos produced look just fine when they are viewed let's say
maybe 50-70%?
depth imo.. cos they really go down to 100% crop and study those photos very carefully
which i think is a bit too much? as consumer seldom uses 100% of the resolution of their
photos and actually those photos produced look just fine when they are viewed let's say
maybe 50-70%?
Halfmoon
Senior Member
Those review are in detail and save us the time.... I normal will look at chart and the review and go for sharp lens when possible.... and I do have a few non-L Canon lens too.....
Then, learn how to test the lens when buying and once you get a good copy, that is it..... Buy Buy Buy!!!!!
Last edited:
hmmm.. how do u quickly test a lens when buying so that u get a good copy?Those review are in detail and save us the time.... I normal will look at chart and the review and go for sharp lens when possible.... and I do have a few non-L Canon lens too.....
Then, learn how to test the lens when buying and once you get a good copy, that is it..... Buy Buy Buy!!!!!
for me, I only ask them for a focus chart if there is to check front/back focusing.. :x
Odyssey-Boy
Senior Member
you are not alone having this mentality.
ME too. Sometime(s) I always thinking of fast lenses.
Not to be vain but under low light conditions. It will come to help.
I am now thinking of the 17-50 series 2.8 and a 85 1.8 which is my last 2 lenses.
Having fast lenses is not a MUST, but GOOD to have, so yup, my 2 cents into my own mentality
ME too. Sometime(s) I always thinking of fast lenses.
Not to be vain but under low light conditions. It will come to help.
I am now thinking of the 17-50 series 2.8 and a 85 1.8 which is my last 2 lenses.
Having fast lenses is not a MUST, but GOOD to have, so yup, my 2 cents into my own mentality
Halfmoon
Senior Member
I did not say quick test... but when I buy a lens, I will shoot it for around 30mins to check for various issue.... Usually, when I want to buy, then I do this test....
1. check physical condition
2. Check for dusts
3. Test color and saturation of lens
4. Test sharpness (centre, edge)
5. Test different range... eg. 24 - 105... test at 24, 35, 70, 105mm......
6. Test different aperture...
7. test different focusing point..... :bsmilie::bsmilie:
Similar threads
