Re: [Leica] re: low light softness + 300mm Tamron

["Joe Codispoti" <joecodi@thegrid.net>]

I have a Tamron 300/2.8 and am very satisfied. I do not use it very much as
I have others less heavy (but slower).
I found the photos taken with the Tamron to be more than good. In fact I
compared them with my Contax 300/4 and wondered if spending the extra money
for the latter was really worth it. Maybe the one owned by Neal was a lemon.

Joseph Codispoti



From: Jem Kime <jem.kime@cwcom.net>

Neil,
I have often thought a 300/2.8 lens would compliment my concert
photography, indeed I've seen several other photographers using them in
these situations.
Was the lens you had the f2.8 lens? This is the cheapest option for
Leicaflex use (with an Adaptall 2 mount), sometimes seen for a third of the
Leica lens equivalent.
Jem



- ----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Frankish <nfrnkish@dux4.tcd.ie>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 2:14 AM
Subject: [Leica] re: low light softness + 300mm Tamron


> I cant remember what it was - probably 3.5 (if not 4) - but it was a very
> horrible lens.
>
> From: Jem Kime <jem.kime@cwcom.net>
>
> Neil,
> I have often thought a 300/2.8 lens would compliment my concert
> photography, indeed I've seen several other photographers using them in
> these situations.
> Was the lens you had the f2.8 lens? This is the cheapest option for
> Leicaflex use (with an Adaptall 2 mount), sometimes seen for a third of
the
> Leica lens equivalent.
> Jem
>
>
>