donsorsa

They all look fancy to me, except for the one with the incredible inner beauty.

Loft, I don't agree with Tim that that makes American looks bad; it makes humans look

bad. Geez, that's ugly. (Hope it isn't a self-portrait...chuckle)

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=257&sort=7&cat=37&page=1">

Here are various opinions</a> Looking at your portfolio (nice work BTW), you travel a lot so I'd guess the size and range caught your attention. I don't have the lens, but maybe I would if I trouped around the world.

Try <a href="http://www.samys.com/product.php?ItemNo=CANOC210071">Samy's camera</a>

<a

href="http://www.sportsshooter.com/student_portfolio/student_portfolio_start.html?id=10">

Here's a place </a> where editors give new shooters feedback on their

photos and captions.

oops, sorry for the size

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3517808-md.jpg">

<a href="http://www.sportsshooter.com/">Sports shooter</a> might be a good place to

get information.

end

end

Amol - My question was poorly worded. I meant to say that discounting the obvious 65/

75mm difference (and more at the wide end) and considering only the 24-125 common

area of the 3 lenses, have any users concluded that the longer zoom matched the quality

of the shorter zoom?

 

Sorry for the confusion.

Well, I was going to post one from 70mm but ya can't tell anything from this tiny size and jpeg compression. In any case, I think the lens is a does a good job, especially for the price. <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=254&sort=7&cat=43&page=2"> Here's what the folks at another site say.</a> The focus is slow for sports so ya learn to compensate.

Try again.<div></div>

I've had the Tamron for a year or so and use it on my dRebel outdoors at sports and various events. It suits my purposes, but then to me any 70-300 lens is better than none. The advantages are price and decent images that make sharp prints up to 8x12. The disadvantage is holding it steady at the long end without IS. I'll try to paste in a couple sample images from the 70 and 300 lengths, but any weaknesses probably come from the photographer and not the lens. Here's one at 300mm:

<BR>

(img src="http://donsorsa.smugmug.com/gallery/596580/1/25089908/Large">

Just considering these lenses and the problems of big zooms, is it possible the 18-200 could match 18-125 for the shots that both reach? Thanks in advance for informed opinions.

The Nokia ads are way too much. I agree with Andrew that I never would have spent any

time here if it had been such an ugly, ad-filled site when I first visited. If the ads continue,

I'll either find a workaround to avoid the ads, maybe by bookmarking individual forums if

possible, or else stay away altogether.

Good advice above. If you're driving through Chicago and plan to get off and on the

highway for 2-3 hours, Brookfield is more accessible (parking and highway access)

although both places will be crowded on weekends. As mentioned above, Lincoln Park

Zoo is located in an urban/park environment but also a 20 minute walk away from Lake

Michigan, beaches, and scores of sand volleyball courts. If you want to spend 5 or more

hours in a zoo, a Botanical Garden, beaches, an aviary, and "hip" city streets with street life

and good cafes/coffee houses, then Lincoln Park is the place. On a clear day, you can get

interesting city-beach-skyline photos from Lincoln Park and nearby beaches.

 

Hope that helps. Maybe you can go to one on the way there and the other on the way

back - and post your photos/impressions of each!

<div></div>

<div></div>

I had a similar problem with my 'flex and discovered it was the film and not a light leak. Hope you discover the same thing!

<div></div>

Loic and Chris - Thanks.