Quote:LOL - I can view this humorously because the mistakes are a minor typo, and just an additional bit of information that might be interesting, though isn't actually a mistake.

 

I know that I sometimes feel typo's aren't worth correcting because the intended audience will understand what is meant, and so:  No harm, no penalty - As we say in America!

 

Since I am less knowledgeable about lenses, and Forum etiquette, I'll just say my piece, and learn for future reference how to be a more harmonious Forum member.

 

In the review of the Tamron SP 60 f/2 Di...Macro for Canon EF-S, somewhere on the first page the lens is accidentally referred to as f/2.8.  Everyone knows what is meant.  Is it worth correcting?  Does anyone care?  It goes:

 

"...Tamron AF 60mm f/2.8 SP Di II offers a maximum object magnification of 1:1"

 

Next - A little tidbit of information that is actually pretty widely known, anyway.  While designed for the Canon small frame camera, it will, in fact, work on a full frame camera.  This could be a handy bit of information for people have both the lens, and a full frame camera.  Of course light falloff is an issue, and yet sometimes you are only interested in the center of the frame for macros depending on the size of what is being shot.

 

Thanks for all of your information you share.  I don't understand half of it, but when I get some extra money I do plan on making a (pathetically small, but to me, meaningful) donation.  You've (forum participants included) helped me make two critical (to me) buying decisions.  I really appreciate that!

 

- Cheers!

Quote:Sure, error corrections are always welcome!

Quote:There's a bug in the resolution graph for the Heliar.

It shows "2837" instead of F/5.6

http://www.opticallimits.com/sony_nex/733-heliar75f18?start=1