10-27-2010, 01:30 PM
[quote name='hackmann' timestamp='1288183660' post='3816']
I´ve been reading all over internet tamron lenses on nikon body tends to give overexposure shots.[/quote]
It's not that simple. I have used Tamron lenses that showed underexposure (Di 60/2), overexposure (70-300 VC) and some seemed to be spot on (17-50 VC).
[quote name='hackmann' timestamp='1288183660' post='3816']
I would just compensate exposure a little but using a tamron lens.
[/quote]
That only works if the exposure offset is static. Which is unfortunately not the case with the 70-300 VC (and the Sigma 70-300 OS, it seems), which shows a varying amount of exposure offset with different focal lengths and apertures.
[quote name='hackmann' timestamp='1288183660' post='3816']
I believe this is not a faulty lens, but a quirk of the lens.
[/quote]
In this case I would call it faulty by design <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
-- Markus
I´ve been reading all over internet tamron lenses on nikon body tends to give overexposure shots.[/quote]
It's not that simple. I have used Tamron lenses that showed underexposure (Di 60/2), overexposure (70-300 VC) and some seemed to be spot on (17-50 VC).
[quote name='hackmann' timestamp='1288183660' post='3816']
I would just compensate exposure a little but using a tamron lens.
[/quote]
That only works if the exposure offset is static. Which is unfortunately not the case with the 70-300 VC (and the Sigma 70-300 OS, it seems), which shows a varying amount of exposure offset with different focal lengths and apertures.
[quote name='hackmann' timestamp='1288183660' post='3816']
I believe this is not a faulty lens, but a quirk of the lens.
[/quote]
In this case I would call it faulty by design <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
opticallimits.com