| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Drack
Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 735
Location: Lithuania
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:53 am Post subject: Tamron Adaptall-2 f3.5/17mm simlpe street test |
 |
|
Drack wrote:
A few days back I was talking with Michael(cooltouch) about the Tamron SP f3.5/17mm lend and decided to do another test with it. The first few test`s that I`ve performed were terrible. Everything came out blurry, soft etc. , however I`ve thought that this might have been due to band weather conditions and my personal fail. Anyway, this day was a very nice, sunny day and I took the Tamron yet again to do several simple street shots to see how well it actually performs.
In general I did like the lens better now, than I had the first attempts. Pictures were sharper, contrast was better, however I did notice one thing. Whenever I try to focus and object that is very far away and set the focus to infinity my camera does not confirm focus. I`ve tried to make several shot`s and notices that at infinity all shots are way softer, however at ~ 2m all shots are pretty nice. This got me thinking what might be wrong with my set up? I`m using my Pentax K-X and a tamron adaptall-2 Pentax-k mount adapter. Can there be something wrong with my adapter? Or maybe the lens has been assembled in a wrong way?
here are some shot`s that I`ve made.
At f8
focus is on the first basket at f8
How is any test without a few tree shots  . Minimal focus distance at f3.5
f8
Focused at ~ 2 meters on the lens scale, camera confirmed focus. At f8.
center crop
Focused at infinity on lens scale, camera did not confirm focus. F8
center crop
_________________
I have many great Russian cameras and lenses for sale on my ebay account, please check it out: http://www.ebay.com/sch/piksius/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=25&_trksid=p3686
Forum members are olbigaded to a discount
DSLR: Pentax K-x + 18-55 kit + f4 35-75mm
Mirrorless : Samsung NX-20 + 18-55 kit
M42 lense: Helios 44-2 , Helios 44-3, Helios 44m , Tair 3 Phs , Mir-1B , Jupiter-37a, Industar 50-2, Industar 61 L/Z, Tlear-N .
Currently using:
Minolta X-700 + MD f1.7/50mm + Rokkor-X f2.8/28mm + MD f3.5 35-70mm MACRO
Zorki-4K + J-8 f2/50mm + J-12 f2.8/35mm
EXA 1A + CZJ Tessar f2.8/50mm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
It certainly looks as though the lens is focusing "beyond infinity". If it's the only lens that does this on your camera, then the problem is with the lens - or at least that the lens is not fully compatible with the body. Could be that the lens has been that way since it was made, or that it's been dismantled at some time and not been put back together properly. If you have another Tamron lens then you could check the adapter on it to see if it behaves differently.
I guess the easiest thing to do is to focus it visually for all your pictures. I have several Tamrons and some of them do go back past infinity slightly on my K10D, no matter which PK mount I put on them. This, I believe, is because lens flange to sensor distance is more critical on digital than it was on film. What worked well on 35mm cameras sometimes doesn't do to well on DSLRs. (Look at Leica User Forum to read all about the problem on digital M Leicas  )
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 7771
Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
I have this problem with Tamron adaptalls, some go way past infinity - some dont, if I use a different NEX adapter, things can change again between MD - OM - PK - FD. with the adaptall mount as well. It's a bit of a lottery, but as long as I check focus carefully it's OK.
_________________
LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drack
Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 735
Location: Lithuania
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Drack wrote:
I know that it is hard to compare, however I did try and use this lens on my Minolta X-700. The results I had were simple terrible. A total waste of film. Images came out soft despite the focus distance and those that came close to being focused had no detal, contras in them what so ever.
Has anybody else use this lens and has some samples to share ? I`ve seen great images taken with it in flickr and other picture sharing pages, but also heard several contraversial opinions about it.
_________________
I have many great Russian cameras and lenses for sale on my ebay account, please check it out: http://www.ebay.com/sch/piksius/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=25&_trksid=p3686
Forum members are olbigaded to a discount
DSLR: Pentax K-x + 18-55 kit + f4 35-75mm
Mirrorless : Samsung NX-20 + 18-55 kit
M42 lense: Helios 44-2 , Helios 44-3, Helios 44m , Tair 3 Phs , Mir-1B , Jupiter-37a, Industar 50-2, Industar 61 L/Z, Tlear-N .
Currently using:
Minolta X-700 + MD f1.7/50mm + Rokkor-X f2.8/28mm + MD f3.5 35-70mm MACRO
Zorki-4K + J-8 f2/50mm + J-12 f2.8/35mm
EXA 1A + CZJ Tessar f2.8/50mm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
I had a 17mm SP at one time - long before digital photography arrived. Mine had the built-in filters. For an ultra wide angle lens it was very good. Kodachromes looked well when projected onto a 4-foot/1.25 meter screen with a good quality projection lens. I eventually replaced it with a 20mm Canon FD which did give 'brighter' transparencies, but if I could have afforded to keep both lenses I certainly would have done so.
I'm puzzled that the results with the Minolta X-700 are so poor. The shots from your Pentax DSLR look as though the original files are certainly sharp (apart from the 'beyond infinity' issue). If the Minolta's split-image rangefinder lets you you line up verticals correctly then the negatives or slides should be in focus . . . unless the camera has a problem with its mirror or focusing screen alignment. But then all your other lenses would give low quality, so what are we to make of that?
My best suggestion is to put both your cameras on a tripod and shoot a series of pictures at distances of - say - 1.5, 5, 10 meters and then infinity, using the focusing screen and not the distance setting scales. The images may not be razor sharp at full aperture, but they should be really sharp at f8. If they're not sharp then, it's time to say goodbye to the lens.
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
| Lloydy wrote: |
| I have this problem with Tamron adaptalls, some go way past infinity - some dont, if I use a different NEX adapter, things can change again between MD - OM - PK - FD. with the adaptall mount as well. It's a bit of a lottery, but as long as I check focus carefully it's OK. |
I think the problem on the Nex is the same that I have with my Lumix G1. It isn't the Tamrons that are 'wrong', it's the Nex/Lumix adapters which are variable in thickness. I have four different ones, from a variety of makers, ALL of which let whatever lens I use go way back past infinity, and all of which give different near-focus limits. The thinner the adapter, the further away is closest focus distance.
There seems to be a total disregard for the necessary dimensions in these adapters. For instance, I have a genuine Canon adapter to let me use FD lenses on a Leica screw body. If I then use an additional Leica-screw to Leica-M adapter on my M8, the infinity results are absolutely fine with either Canon or other other makes of FD lenses. But if I mate that combo with a Chinese Leica-screw or M to Lumix adapter, every lens is way, way out of focus if I sent the scale to infinity on the G1. Manually focusing on-screen is essential.
I can now see the justification for spending big money on either the genuine Lumix or the Voigtlander Leica-to-Lumix adapters.
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sammo
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 223
Location: CH and SI
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sammo wrote:
| scsambrook wrote: |
| This, I believe, is because lens flange to sensor distance is more critical on digital than it was on film. What worked well on 35mm cameras sometimes doesn't do to well on DSLRs. |
I don't understand why would it be more critical? I would say since the film has superiour resolution it is the other way around.
I would say that short focal leghts are more sensitive to flange distance than long focal lenghts? Heliocoid has to strech far more out for tele lenses to achive same short focus distance, than for wide lenses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian Y
Joined: 06 Mar 2013
Posts: 6
Location: Calgary, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Brian Y wrote:
I dont have the 17 but I have many Tamron AD lenses. I used them on my Pentax K mount digital cameras with PKA or PK adapters and Nex5N with chinese made adapters. I learned not to leave the lenses on infinity but rely on the view finder or screen. I believe the Chinese made adaptors were purposely made to beyond infinity to avoid the opposite effect, short of infinity, which will be even worse. Since they were mass produced and cheap it is hard to control the quality without a significant expense increase.
I did have a problem with focusing before with my Tamron AD 105f2.5 at medium to long distance. It was good at short distance but not at longer distance, it appeared that the focusing screw was not functioning properly. I sent it out for servicing for $60 locally and it came back good as new. I am not sure if your lens suffers from the same problem.
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Russ
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Russ wrote:
I have the original model with the built in filters. I've never given it a real test. But, I've never been disappointed with its results. I burn film exclusively.
_________________
'A photograph that mirrors reality, cannot compare to one that reflects the spirit"
Russ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57852
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
| Russ wrote: |
I have the original model with the built in filters. I've never given it a real test. But, I've never been disappointed with its results. I burn film exclusively.
|
+1 film is more forgivable media, sensor is larger
I did try this lens first on OLYMPUS E-1 , result was crap... later I did try on SONY NEX-3 , result was pretty good. I found Tokina RMC 17mm is better so I let Tamron to go. On film I did like it same as Russ.
_________________
-------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
| sammo wrote: |
| scsambrook wrote: |
| This, I believe, is because lens flange to sensor distance is more critical on digital than it was on film. What worked well on 35mm cameras sometimes doesn't do to well on DSLRs. |
I don't understand why would it be more critical? I would say since the film has superiour resolution it is the other way around. |
From what I've read, the explanation is this:
With film, the image is formed in the emulsion coated onto the base (yes, we all know that!). Different films have varying emulsion thicknesses and also they sometimes have different thicknesses of their bases. Colour films not only have thicker emulsions than black & white, they also have three layers so that the image is formed in what amounts to a sandwich. So, the camera maker has to decide on what is an appropriate distance from lens flange to the film when taking into account these variables. To complicate things further, film tends to curve when in position to receive an image from the camera lens, so there is an extra element of variation. According to "received wisdom" film camera makers worked on a notional register dimension which anticipated where the emulsion might be when the exposure was made. This was satisfactory because the image formed had a finite depth in the emulsion which tended to compensate for some of the variables.
With digital imaging the image is formed on a sensor which is not only flat but has no depth with regard to recording the image. If what was in reality a nominal register dimension for film cameras deviates from the actual flange-to-focused image distance, then the theory says that the digital image may be out of focus. Simply put, the image may be formed either in front of or behind the sensor surface. Both manual and auto focusing systems in DSLRS depend on measuring sharpness of an image formed at a point which corresponds to the register distance, so the problem isn't avoided. Only with systems focusing on-sensor might this difficulty be overcome.
I guess that many people will find this counter-intuitive. I certainly did at first, but on balance it makes sense to me. There is, however, some element of "belief" involved
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoanpham
Joined: 31 Jan 2011
Posts: 2575
Expire: 2015-01-18
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
hoanpham wrote:
I have the model without build in filters.
It is sharp at infinity at f3.5.
Focus confirm ok all distances, on pentax and canon.
at f3.5 it has strong vignette on 5dm2.
Have not directly compare with tokina.
_________________
La migliore cura di LBA � imparare una nuova lingua. Le meilleur rem�de de LBA est d'apprendre une nouvelle langue. La mejor cura del LBA es aprender una nueva lengua. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hifisapi
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Posts: 941
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hifisapi wrote:
I once had both the tamron 17mm F3.5 and the RMC Tokina 17mm F3.5 at the same time. While the tamron did work fine
on my Pentax DSLR with the Pentax KA adaptall2 adapter, the RMC Tokina was just as sharp and had slightly more contrast
so I sold the Tamron. I eventually sold the RMC Tokina too as I acquired the SMC Pentax K 18mm F3.5 which was clearly superior
to the Tokina in contrast saturation resolution and geometry.
_________________
===========
ACQUIRED OVER 30 YEARS:
Cameras: DSLR=Pentax istDS FILM=Pentax SP, SP-F, ESII, SP1000, KX, K2
Lenses : Pentax M42 = Super Multi Coated Takumars 50/1.4 55/1.8 100/4-BELLOWS 500/4.5 1000/8 135-600/6.7 Pentax PK= SMC Pentax-Ks K17/4-FF Fisheye K18/3.5 K20/4 K24/3.5 K28/3.5 K28/2 K35/3.5 K35/2 K50/1.2 K50/1.4K 50/4-MACROK 55/1.8 K85/1.8 K100/4-MACRO K100/4-BELLOWS K105/2.8 K120/2.8 K135/3.5 K135/2.5 K150/4 K200/4 K400/5.6 K45-125/4K 85-210/4.5 Pentax PKM = SMC Pentax-M M40/2.8-Pancake M50/1.4 M75-150/4 M80-200/4.5 Pentax PKA= SMC Pentax-A A15/3.5 A50/2.8-MACRO A28/2 A35/2 A50/1.4 A135/2.8 A200/4 A*300/4 A35-105/3.5 A24-50/4 A70-210/4 TAMRON AD2= SP80-200/2.8 SP180/2.5 TOKINA AT-X PK= ATX28-85/3.5-4.5 ATX35-70/2.8 ATX60-120/2.8 ATX80-200/2.8 ATX100-300/4 ATX90/2.5 MACRO KIRON-LESTER DINE PK = 105/2.8-MACRO VIVITAR PK = 135/2.8-MACRO 28-85/4 NOFLEXAR AUTOBELLOWS PK = 60/4 105/4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6943
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
The Tamron 17mm tends to focus past infinity, which is why users complain about its performance; simply put, it's out of focus.
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drack
Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 735
Location: Lithuania
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Drack wrote:
| martinsmith99 wrote: |
| The Tamron 17mm tends to focus past infinity, which is why users complain about its performance; simply put, it's out of focus. |
I`m thinking about this too. But ho do you explain the soft images on my film camera? Even though the lens focuses past infinity i should be able to see that in my viewfinder. Also most of my shots were made ~ 2-5 m away and they came out crappy.
_________________
I have many great Russian cameras and lenses for sale on my ebay account, please check it out: http://www.ebay.com/sch/piksius/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=25&_trksid=p3686
Forum members are olbigaded to a discount
DSLR: Pentax K-x + 18-55 kit + f4 35-75mm
Mirrorless : Samsung NX-20 + 18-55 kit
M42 lense: Helios 44-2 , Helios 44-3, Helios 44m , Tair 3 Phs , Mir-1B , Jupiter-37a, Industar 50-2, Industar 61 L/Z, Tlear-N .
Currently using:
Minolta X-700 + MD f1.7/50mm + Rokkor-X f2.8/28mm + MD f3.5 35-70mm MACRO
Zorki-4K + J-8 f2/50mm + J-12 f2.8/35mm
EXA 1A + CZJ Tessar f2.8/50mm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
Hi there Drack!
The film camera results are puzzling. If you had correct focus in the viewfinder then the results SHOULD be clear. One important question: Are results from other lenses OK with the camera ? If you haven't tried other lenses on it, then that's the next thing to do. If you have, and they produce good results, then the problem must either be with the lens or your repeated failures to focus it properly ( !!! ). I doubt you would always focus it wrongly though
Focusing such short focal lengths accurately without some sort of aid is not easy. But your Minolta 35mm camera will have a split image rangefinder which means getting it right is no problem as long as you can find any vertical or diagonal straight edge.
Having said that, your images made using the focus confirmation on your DSLR do indeed look sharp so the lens clearly isn't faulty. If I were you, I'd put another film in the Minolta and shoot some more pictures very carefully, using other lenses as well as the 17mm Tamron.
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drack
Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 735
Location: Lithuania
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Drack wrote:
Yes, I`ve also used my MD f1.7/50 mm on my minolta and all the images came out nicely. When I`ve shot the Tamron I did in fact take my time to adjust and focus the images precisely since I`ve tied hard to make most of the first test shot. Anyway, I do still have a film put inside my minolta so I guess I`ll try to make additional images and have a look.
_________________
I have many great Russian cameras and lenses for sale on my ebay account, please check it out: http://www.ebay.com/sch/piksius/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=25&_trksid=p3686
Forum members are olbigaded to a discount
DSLR: Pentax K-x + 18-55 kit + f4 35-75mm
Mirrorless : Samsung NX-20 + 18-55 kit
M42 lense: Helios 44-2 , Helios 44-3, Helios 44m , Tair 3 Phs , Mir-1B , Jupiter-37a, Industar 50-2, Industar 61 L/Z, Tlear-N .
Currently using:
Minolta X-700 + MD f1.7/50mm + Rokkor-X f2.8/28mm + MD f3.5 35-70mm MACRO
Zorki-4K + J-8 f2/50mm + J-12 f2.8/35mm
EXA 1A + CZJ Tessar f2.8/50mm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scsambrook
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 2167
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scsambrook wrote:
It will be interesting to see what the results are like. Good luck with it !
_________________
Stephen
Equipment: Pentax DSLR for casual shooting, Lumix G1 and Fuji XE-1 for playing with old lenses, and Leica M8 because I still like the optical rangefinder system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TijmenDal
Joined: 22 Sep 2011
Posts: 206
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TijmenDal wrote:
Is this the 67 or 77mm filter thread version of the lens?
I've had two of the 67mm version and both really liked 'em.
_________________
//Tijmen
http://cargocollective.com/tijmendal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sburley
Joined: 16 May 2012
Posts: 19
Location: Kent, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sburley wrote:
| TijmenDal wrote: |
Is this the 67 or 77mm filter thread version of the lens?
I've had two of the 67mm version and both really liked 'em. |
Aren't they 82mm?
_________________
Digital Cameras: EOS550D, Nex-3, Nikon D50, Sony R-1
MF Lenses:-
RE-Auto-Topcor: 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 58/1.4, 100/2.8, 135/3.5
X-Fujinon: 28/3.5 EBC, 50/1.6 EBC, 135/2.5 EBC, 200/4.5 EBC
Fujinon: 135/3.5 T, 135/3.5 EBC
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8 ML, Contax Zeiss 28/2.8, Contax Zeiss 50/1.7, Yashica 50/2
Nikkor: 24/2.8 AI, 75-150/3.5 E, 80-200/4.5 AI, 100/2.8 E
Takumar: 24/3.5 S-M-C, 28/3.5 Super Tak, 28/3.5 SMC, 55/2 Super Tak
Tamron SP: 24-48, 35-80, 90/2.5
Werra: 50/2.8, 100/4
Misc MF: Sigma 21-35 MC, Konica AR 40/2.8, Vivitar S1 28-105/2.8-3.8, Juperter 37A 135/3.5, Auto Chinon 200/3.5
AF Lenses: Nikkor 28-200 G, EF 28-105 USM II (JP) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DigiChromeEd
Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Posts: 3460
Location: Northern Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DigiChromeEd wrote:
| sburley wrote: |
| TijmenDal wrote: |
Is this the 67 or 77mm filter thread version of the lens?
I've had two of the 67mm version and both really liked 'em. |
Aren't they 82mm? |
Yes.
_________________
"I've got a Nikon camera, I like to take a photograph" - Paul Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Russ
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Russ wrote:
| DigiChromeEd wrote: |
| sburley wrote: |
| TijmenDal wrote: |
Is this the 67 or 77mm filter thread version of the lens?
I've had two of the 67mm version and both really liked 'em. |
Aren't they 82mm? |
Yes. |
Yes. Both versions are 82mm filter sized.
_________________
'A photograph that mirrors reality, cannot compare to one that reflects the spirit"
Russ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoanpham
Joined: 31 Jan 2011
Posts: 2575
Expire: 2015-01-18
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hoanpham wrote:
I would like to ask in this thread:
Is there another hood that I can use with this lens?
My tamron 17/3.5 is the cheaper version without build in filters.
There is no filter thread to accept step up rings or filters.
and I dont even have the front cap.
If anyone have front cap or hood spare, please let me know.
Last edited by hoanpham on Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6943
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
| Drack wrote: |
| martinsmith99 wrote: |
| The Tamron 17mm tends to focus past infinity, which is why users complain about its performance; simply put, it's out of focus. |
I`m thinking about this too. But ho do you explain the soft images on my film camera? Even though the lens focuses past infinity i should be able to see that in my viewfinder. Also most of my shots were made ~ 2-5 m away and they came out crappy. |
Focusing a lens with such a wide angle would be difficult. How does it look when you focus on an object 6 feet away and then point at a far off object. Use F8 and show some samples[/quote]
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6943
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
| DigiChromeEd wrote: |
| sburley wrote: |
| TijmenDal wrote: |
Is this the 67 or 77mm filter thread version of the lens?
I've had two of the 67mm version and both really liked 'em. |
Aren't they 82mm? |
Yes. |
And the one with the built in filters has no threads.
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
