Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/05/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 11:32 AM 5/27/96 -0500, you wrote: >I am particularly considering the 90/2.5 Macro and the 28-70/3.5 Zoom. > Does anyone have experience with Tamron lenses? I don't expect Leica >quality, obviously, but are they pretty good? decent? junk? Any help >will be greatly appreciated. At my previous newspaper we had a Tamron 300 2.8 for a pool lens, since each photographer used a different brand camera (Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Leica). It was a good lens, not outstanding, though. Wide open it was quite soft compared to Lecia, Nikon or Canon. But it did the job. It works well with the 1.4 Leica Apo converter. The main problem with Tamron lenses isn't the glass, which is pretty competitive with most (except as noted above 300 (280) 2.8s) other glass out there, including many manufacturers. The only real problem is they aren't that rugged. After several years of professional use, they tend to fall apart. Since you seem to be filling in the gaps, I don't think it might be something for you to worry about. Performance-wise, people seem to be very impressed with the 90 2.5 macro. As for the mount, they are not all that rugged either, but they do the job just fine. It's probably best to buy one for each lens, so you don't have to continually switch them back and forth and cause a lot of wear. The 300 2.8 is so heavy, the right blow to the lens will break the mount notches that hold the mount on the back of the lens. Then you have to hold the lens to make sure it doesn't twist and the camera fall off when you're not looking. Not good! It happened to me several times (breaking, the camera fell off several, and except for once I caught it before it hit the ground). Should be no problem with more more normal lenses. ========================== Eric Welch Grants Pass Daily Courier