weida34 [2010-09-22 21:25:59 +0000 UTC]
hmm.. i can't see this in full view either, same as *Corvidae65 looks good in small view though
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TThealer56 In reply to weida34 [2010-09-23 00:36:05 +0000 UTC]
This has been a glitch in DA for the last few days.
weida34 In reply to TThealer56 [2010-09-23 00:43:02 +0000 UTC]
kinda thought so
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Corvidae65 [2010-09-22 06:28:05 +0000 UTC]
Looks pretty good I think. I can't get the full view to open (been having problems with DA since monday ) Did Tamron fix the lens or replace? Just wondering
TThealer56 In reply to Corvidae65 [2010-09-22 07:11:31 +0000 UTC]
They cleaned it and adjusted it. It does seem to be quieter and a bit smoother. I'd like to try one of the newer models they have of the 70~300mm. Maybe I can get one of the shops here in town to let me put one on my camera and try it. This is what I'd really like, but it's just a bit out of my budget for a while.... [link]
Corvidae65 In reply to TThealer56 [2010-09-22 07:37:22 +0000 UTC]
Sweeeeet! 80-400 is a nice reach and f4-5.6 is still pretty fast. I'm leaning towards not buying anything that isn't f2.8 or less. $pendy choice but I only want 3 or so lenses total. Like you it will be a while before any of that happens At least Tamron did *something* to it.
TThealer56 In reply to Corvidae65 [2010-09-22 21:03:05 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, I do think the lens is better and has possibilities on slow subjects. Keep in mind, that your D90 will handle noise much better than the D40, so that f3.5 with VR becomes equivalent to a 1.8 or 2.8. I really think this is part of the reason that Nikon seems to make a lot of lenses in this range. It makes them more financially possible. Not that $650.00 is a minor chunk of change, but lenses at $6K are just way out of reach.... at least for me. Actually, I can do quite well with the 2 Nikkor lenses that I have. The Tamron is somewhat limited in it's capabilities.