Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by Djurchicprelude, Aug 26, 2005.
Tamron lenses, are they good or crap? specifically for a nikon d70s? thanks
Ask a silly question....
Some people quite like them, but then they've probably not done a back-to-back test with Nikon top glass or they don't have the budget. Either way, they are budget lenses and the results are entirely personal opinion - some people here like Holga lenses for example as they produce a pleasing soft image.
as with (almost) all of the manufacturers, some are very good, and some are crap. You should post which lens you had in mind specifically, then we can probably help.
I think Tamron havent chipped their old lenses for digital SLR's, and charge you to chip them, so id say dont go with it...and why type in BIG BLUE WRITING?
I bought a budget Tamron 70-300 (renamed "ProMaster" and sold through a nat'l camera store chain) which interfaces nicely with my Canon EOS film SLR; the salesman said the lenses have also interfaced well with the Canon digital SLRs. I'm not such a world-class photographer (I'm pretty awful, in fact, if you consider my good/bad photo ratio) that I have to have the ultimate lens. To me what's in front of the lens that's more important. One advantage, I got the big honkin' thing for $179. Branded Tamron's are way more than that, but still attractively priced well below the top stuff.
Rob, re: Holga lenses, I found a 180 degree rule applies: any Holga shot I take that I think is going to be just wonderful turns out to be anywhere from bad to completely incomprehensible. Conversely, shots I take that, upon clicking the shutter, make me think "Now why'd I do that?" seem to turn out better than good. This applies only to the Holga....
I would agree with this. There are plenty of people who believe if it's got "Canon" or "Nikon" stamped on it that it's got to be the best, better than all the rest, but they put out their share of mediocre glass too.
these are the lenses i was refering to
well, both of those lenses will work fine if you use them correctly, but if you want to get technical about it, they are both slow lenses, meaning that they do not have very wide apertures and you cannot get as high shutter speeds as you could with 'faster' lenses. they are a bit soft sometimes, but that can be remedied by stopping them down a stop or two. i've heard that 70-300 has pretty bad autofocus, it hunts and is slow. so there you go. there are a few GREAT tamron lenses though, if you want to buy them seperately.
so the whole 3fps that you could do with this camera you wont be able to do cause of the lenses?
As thebeginning pointed out, the autofocus is quite slow, so if it tries to autofocus for each shot then 3fps is pretty unlikely. I have a similar problem with a film camera that can supposedly manage 3 shots per second; this is normally only possible when I switch off autofocus and focus manually instead.
no, you can still do that, but you wont be able to get as fast of actual shutter speeds as you would if you had a lens with a larger maximum aperture size.
let's say you bought a 50mm f1.4 lens. the smaller the f number, the more light that can get into the camera, and the faster your shutter speeds can be.
an example: at f2, you might get a shutter speed of 1/1000 seconds, while at f5.6, you would get a much slower shutter speed of 1/125 seconds. This only really matters if you will be taking pictures of fast moving objects.
Separate names with a comma.