12-21-2011, 05:34 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1324475159' post='13973']
Personal, I guess. I would have no problem with a 24-60mm, just combine it with a longer lens for longer stuff. Does not even have to cost much (Canon 85mm f1.8 USM, one of the 90-105mm macros, and so on).[/quote]
I'm not saying I can't or wouldn't use one, but for the specific application I mentioned in the 1st post, it isn't well suited. Basically, I'm looking for a full frame equivalent to the 15-85 which doesn't seem to exist. I think I've come to the conclusion the next best thing is the 28-135 and I might grab one if I see one at a low enough price used.
[quote name='Rover' timestamp='1324477889' post='13974']
You may've been asking too much from it... a $400 f/2.8 lens isn't very likely to be critically sharp wide open. Not even a $1000 lens is guaranteed to be sharp wide open (not the FF ones, anyways).[/quote]
The reviews were generally positive, so I was expecting a bit more. I'm not an obsessive pixel peeper and I think my "good enough" threshold is pretty low, but the Tamron failed to meet that.
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1324482624' post='13977']
What you could consider as well, BTW, is getting a 24 F/2.8 or using your TS-E 24 on this camera, and any other of the primes you have. You may well be pleasantly surprised by the results. Maybe upgrade the 50 F/1.8 to a 50 F/1.4, either Sigma or Canon, or maybe even a ZE 50 F/2 (much more expensive however).
Or if you want to go crazy, get a TS-E 17L. That would certainly justify the existence of the 5D II just by itself, and vice versa <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. Very expensive lens however <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.[/quote]
Again, in this thread I was looking for a lens for a specific application. I have a bunch of primes already which is in part why I wanted the 5D2, so I can try to unleash their potential. But for my "comfort zone" use, all I want is a reasonable standard zoom.
It may be done to death but I do want to do the "fake miniatures" with the TS-E24. For walkaround, I haven't decided yet if the 35/2 or a 50mm will better suit me as that is an alien world to me. I have been thinking of replacing the f/1.8 with the f/1.4 for those times when I need AF, as I do have the Zeiss 2/50 already.
The TS-E17... well, thankfully that doesn't fit into my (known) needs at all so it isn't on the radar. The only significant lens on my short term wish list (say within 6 months) is the fisheye zoom.
Personal, I guess. I would have no problem with a 24-60mm, just combine it with a longer lens for longer stuff. Does not even have to cost much (Canon 85mm f1.8 USM, one of the 90-105mm macros, and so on).[/quote]
I'm not saying I can't or wouldn't use one, but for the specific application I mentioned in the 1st post, it isn't well suited. Basically, I'm looking for a full frame equivalent to the 15-85 which doesn't seem to exist. I think I've come to the conclusion the next best thing is the 28-135 and I might grab one if I see one at a low enough price used.
[quote name='Rover' timestamp='1324477889' post='13974']
You may've been asking too much from it... a $400 f/2.8 lens isn't very likely to be critically sharp wide open. Not even a $1000 lens is guaranteed to be sharp wide open (not the FF ones, anyways).[/quote]
The reviews were generally positive, so I was expecting a bit more. I'm not an obsessive pixel peeper and I think my "good enough" threshold is pretty low, but the Tamron failed to meet that.
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1324482624' post='13977']
What you could consider as well, BTW, is getting a 24 F/2.8 or using your TS-E 24 on this camera, and any other of the primes you have. You may well be pleasantly surprised by the results. Maybe upgrade the 50 F/1.8 to a 50 F/1.4, either Sigma or Canon, or maybe even a ZE 50 F/2 (much more expensive however).
Or if you want to go crazy, get a TS-E 17L. That would certainly justify the existence of the 5D II just by itself, and vice versa <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. Very expensive lens however <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.[/quote]Again, in this thread I was looking for a lens for a specific application. I have a bunch of primes already which is in part why I wanted the 5D2, so I can try to unleash their potential. But for my "comfort zone" use, all I want is a reasonable standard zoom.
It may be done to death but I do want to do the "fake miniatures" with the TS-E24. For walkaround, I haven't decided yet if the 35/2 or a 50mm will better suit me as that is an alien world to me. I have been thinking of replacing the f/1.8 with the f/1.4 for those times when I need AF, as I do have the Zeiss 2/50 already.
The TS-E17... well, thankfully that doesn't fit into my (known) needs at all so it isn't on the radar. The only significant lens on my short term wish list (say within 6 months) is the fisheye zoom.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.