Jump to content

deen_hameed

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by deen_hameed

    Nikon 300mm f/4 or Tamron 300mmf/2.8???

    in Nature

    Posted

    Bruce...

     

    I HAVE read your report on the Tamron 300/2.8 and subsequent travails for the teleconverter... Like you I think the extra stop of the fast glass is very important, esp. if you gonna use long glass...

     

    Like I said, i do not have any experience at all with these lenses, and it does seems likely that the author of the OP article used the lenses on different days... so lighting and things would have been different...

     

    BUT... that said, i did find the pictures from the Tamron lacking in contrast, and was wondering if perhaps it would be clever to go for it, rather than the branded (Nikon) lens...

     

    I have the resale value/brand phobia thing upside down... you can buy any nikon lens and sell it less 20% later, so it is not a risk (I can afford any lens you throw at me)... but the Tamron (or 3-rd party lenses) do nt have much of a resale value... and so it becomes doubly important to make the right decision when you go off-brand...

     

    After reading your review (and others too), I am much more reassured by the idea... of course, now I have to think about the Tokina too..

     

    My 90/2.8 SP Macro however stays with me... I consider the equal of the Nikorr, just for the bokeh... inspite of the annoying focus clutch, lack of MF/AF switch and no IF.

     

    Deen

    Nikon 300mm f/4 or Tamron 300mmf/2.8???

    in Nature

    Posted

    here i go off at a tangent again...

     

    have you considered the results from the Tamron vs. the Nikon?

     

    Now I personally have no experience with any lens longet than 200mm, but I am looking at a purchase (300mm) soon, so this is of some concern to me.

     

    while I am sure the Tamron is a very good lens (I have the 90mm/2.8 SP and love it extremely much), there was a marked difference in photos shot with the Nikon and Tamron (as printed in Outdoor Photographer a few months ago)... I couldn't really tell what it was, but i preferred the Nikon's results over the Tamron...

     

    Importantly, I found the pictures taken by the Tamron immediately recongnisable (as something was lacking)...

     

    Was it me, or is there *really* such a big difference in results (not necessarily sharpness, lens speed, AF, contrast)...

     

    Will the people with both the lenses please comment.

     

    Deen

×
×
  • Create New...