[Lowell Goudge]

Does this lens ( Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO) has two versions?

I'm a newbie and t his is the second time reading about non-macro version. I ordered mine and was surprised to find the "Macro" on the label.

enlighten me.

thanks.

My copy is exactly as yours, there is a difference however, between a true macro lens that is designed specifically for close focus work, and flat field focusing, and a normal lens, or zoom lens that can close focus.

There are tons of trade offs in lens design, but the ability to close focus is a selling point. The lens can focus incredibly close at 75mm, hence it gets called macro, and it will be fine for macro work in general, providing a) you stop down, and b) you are not copying flat objects at maximum magnification.

That is why I asked if the OP had decided that this was to be used specifically as a macro lens or not. He is asking for a rediculous performance out of an otherwise fine lens. and then bitching about it when it can't do it.

This lens costs considerably less than a true macro lens for one reason only, it was never intended to be a true macro lens. As an aside, a forum member who knew I was looking for a pentax 200mm macro sent me a PM offering me on of the two that he had. I appreciated the gesture, but note that the market price of this lens used is 5 times what I paid for the tamron.

[alib99]

[QUOTE=Lowell Goudge;189621]

That is why I asked if the OP had decided that this was to be used specifically as a macro lens or not. He is asking for a rediculous performance out of an otherwise fine lens. and then bitching about it when it can't do it.

QUOTE]

Lowell Goudge, In my previous posts I accepted that I did not think about the flat field performance of such lenses. After some explanations from the posters, including you, I understood the limits of this lens. You repeated this a number of times in this topic. How can you still say that I am expecting ridiculous performance from this lens and bitching about this. I am sorry to bother you. Please do not spend your valuable time anymore explaining things to the posters who are not as knowledgeable as you if you will claim them bitching about the equipment.

[Lowell Goudge]

That is why I asked if the OP had decided that this was to be used specifically as a macro lens or not. He is asking for a rediculous performance out of an otherwise fine lens. and then bitching about it when it can't do it.

Lowell Goudge, In my previous posts I accepted that I did not think about the flat field performance of such lenses. After some explanations from the posters, including you, I understood the limits of this lens. You repeated this a number of times in this topic. How can you still say that I am expecting ridiculous performance from this lens and bitching about this. I am sorry to bother you. Please do not spend your valuable time anymore explaining things to the posters who are not as knowledgeable as you if you will claim them bitching about the equipment.

I appologize if the response has upset you , but it was not clear that you were satisfied with the performance of the lens and were still spending time looking at an issue that does not really exist.

[ballgofar]

My copy is exactly as yours, there is a difference however, between a true macro lens that is designed specifically for close focus work, and flat field focusing, and a normal lens, or zoom lens that can close focus.

There are tons of trade offs in lens design, but the ability to close focus is a selling point. The lens can focus incredibly close at 75mm, hence it gets called macro, and it will be fine for macro work in general, providing a) you stop down, and b) you are not copying flat objects at maximum magnification.

Are there any disadvantages of the macro version of this lens (or other lenses that come in macro or non-marco)? For example, when focusing at objects farther away, does the non-macro version perform better? Or is it that being able to macro focus is a bonus and has no drawbacks?

[pentkon52]

My copy was crap from F4 to F2.8 in normal and macro mode.

This a return

Dave

[Lowell Goudge]

Are there any disadvantages of the macro version of this lens (or other lenses that come in macro or non-marco)? For example, when focusing at objects farther away, does the non-macro version perform better? Or is it that being able to macro focus is a bonus and has no drawbacks?

I don't know about the "non macro version, as I only own the macro version.

I have been quite pleased withit so far, but as I stated, only a few hundred shots.

I will have a better feel soon.

[alib99]

I appologize if the response has upset you , but it was not clear that you were satisfied with the performance of the lens and were still spending time looking at an issue that does not really exist.

Thank you for your reply. Considering all the "OMG this lens is impressive" messages, I guess I was expecting prime quality. After all, this is just a reasonably priced zoom lens. So far I can say I am satisfied with the overall results. But one should not think that this can be a replacement for pentax primes.

[egordon99]

There is only one version of this lens. It is NOT a 1:1 macro lens; the Macro designation just means you can focus fairly close with it (great for flowers and such).

I had a great copy of this lens when I was with Pentax. It has been sold a few times and I'm not sure who ended up with it.

I might pick one up for Canon as it's only ~$350 compared to the $1K Canon 24-70mm L (although the Tamron doesn't have Canon's awesome USM autofocus )