Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/05/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
You wrote:
. I have long been toying with the
>idea of filling in some "gaps" in my R-series lenses with Tamron
Adaptalls. My part of the country is Leica-challenged, so I don't know
anyone who has done this - or even uses Tamron lenses on any camera.
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.
>
>Chuck
>cwarman@sol.wf.net
>
Chuck;
I own an 300mm f2.8, 80-200mm f2.8, 24mm f2.5, 17mm f2.8, 28-200mm
f3.8, Tamron lens. While you do not get Leica quality, all these lens
are good quality. The 28-200 leaves a lot to be desired, but it is a
good general purpose lens for taking pictures of the kids in the pool
or the playground. Every word that I have heard about the 90 f2.5 is
that it is one of the best macro lenses around. Just remember that
life is a series of tradeoffs, and IMHO when you have the choice
between a Leica lens and a non-Leica lens the Leica lens will perfrom
better, but at what cost. I own a few different camera systems and I
find that they all perform well (within their own limitations).
With all that said, the 100mm Leica APo-macro lens is second only
to the 65mm Elmar as the best macro lens ever made.
John N3BVH
>
>