[wallyb]

100% crop or GTFO.

So you want me to just take that image, cut a little square out of it, and post that square? Instead of you just clicking on the image?

lol....

[asdf]

So you want me to just take that image, cut a little square out of it, and post that square? Instead of you just clicking on the image?

lol....

Clicking on the image does not give me a 100% zoom.

[wallyb]

Clicking on the image does not give me a 100% zoom.

Open in a new window, not left-click on it...

[asdf]

Open in a new window, not left-click on it...

Well, maybe I'm a little confused as well. Which image are we talking about? Can you give me the link again?

[enoxatnep]

Couldn't resist this question.
Fairly simple:
Do the reported SDM problems affect your purchasing?
i.e.: did you cancel/postpone your lens purchase based on these?

TIA
Peter

I've realized through extensive reading that more than a few SDM owners have gone through a nightmare while others have owned several SDM lenses with absolutely no problems. But since this proves that I have no idea of what I'd end up with, I'm totally avoiding any and all SDM lenses until their reputation becomes pretty near impeccable, until SDM failures are hardly an issue.

Perhaps the results of this poll will cause Pentax to get serious about solving the SDM problems if they are not doing so already. Until that time, they’re missing out on money that people like me would be spending on SDM lenses if we had confidence that there was little chance of problems. For now, it's legacy or screw-drive glass for me.

[LeDave]

Well, maybe I'm a little confused as well. Which image are we talking about? Can you give me the link again?

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/5/imgp8911.jpg

[asdf]

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/5/imgp8911.jpg

Thanks. According to the exif that was processed with GIMP 2.6.7 (probably scaled and unsharp mask applied to it, or something similar). EDIT: The shot was done at f/6.3. So what the is the point of that image anyway?

[wallyb]

Thanks. According to the exif that was processed with GIMP 2.6.7 (probably scaled and unsharp mask applied to it, or something similar). EDIT: The shot was done at f/6.3. So what the is the point of that image anyway?

The image was shot at f/3.5 (not f/2.8 as I thought). f/3.5 is just one stop from wide-open. f/3.5 + a 1.7x IQ-degrading teleconverter as mentioned = f/6.3 (rounded up from f/5.95). If you can't see what that proves, I don't know how to help you.

Alex00 conveniently stripped all EXIF info from the picture of the baby he uploaded. Who knows what aperture it was shot at. Could even be f/5.6. And without an IQ-degrading teleconverter. Nor does he explain or leave the information for what the settings were in-camera, or what was done in post-processing. How convenient.

[asdf]

The image was shot at f/3.5 (not f/2.8 as I thought). f/3.5 is just one stop from wide-open. f/3.5 + a 1.7x IQ-degrading teleconverter as mentioned = f/6.3 (rounded up from f/5.95).

I see. Did you scale the image in Gimp and/or do other post-processing?

Alex00 conveniently stripped all EXIF info from the picture of the baby he uploaded. Who knows what aperture it was shot at. Could even be f/5.6. And without an IQ-degrading teleconverter.

I haven't commented on Alex's posts, as there are already enough people doing so.

[wallyb]

I see. Did you scale the image in Gimp and/or do other post-processing?

Yep, scaled down to about 60% and about 15/100 sharpness applied. No unsharp mask though.

Here's an image I just took with the Tamron of the leaves on my back porch. At f/3.5 only because it overexposed at f/2.8 with my dumb flash (which is fair regardless since Alex00 won't say what aperture his was shot at), and no sharpening applied. A 100%, untouched crop is inlaid:

[NeverSatisfied]

Well clearly I've been a poor defender of the (non)faith (sorry Gary! ), but it's a bit amusing that Alex is balancing his entire soapbox on the one photo. He apparently will continue to dismiss anything else out of hand until we all post the requisite indoor-baby-headshot! How about playing devil's advocate and asking for Alex to post some great shots other than babies indoors? When it comes to things like sports I believe for example the Sigma 70-200 HSM AF will run rings around the DA*50-135's vaunted SDM. Although I will agree that the image quality of the 50-135 is excellent, it's the SDM that's the issue in this poll, and when used for purposes other than indoor baby headshots, one may find that this lens is not necessarily the end-all/be-all. Peace out!

it's the SDM that's the issue in this poll,

You're absolutely right, but the detour has been highly amusing.

[asdf]

A 100%, untouched crop is inlaid:

Looks alright. BTW, dpreview claimed that in the middle of the zoom range, wide open, the lens is "soft." You may check that for yourself, if you're interested.

Tamron SP AF 70-200mm Di LD (IF) Macro Lens Review: 4. Test results (APS-C): Digital Photography Review (scroll down for the 100% mushy crops)

It's possible that: 1. dpreview made a mistake. 2. their copy was "bad." 3. both. 4. neither.

When it comes to things like sports I believe for example the Sigma 70-200 HSM AF will run rings around the DA*50-135's vaunted SDM.

So what other lenses will we bring up? BTW, according to dpreview Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 focuses slow (on a Canon body). I think the best comparison would be DA* 50-135 SDM vs. Sigma 50-150 HSM on a Pentax body. There was already a thread about this on this forum, though.

[Alex00]

The image was shot at f/3.5 (not f/2.8 as I thought). f/3.5 is just one stop from wide-open. f/3.5 + a 1.7x IQ-degrading teleconverter as mentioned = f/6.3 (rounded up from f/5.95). If you can't see what that proves, I don't know how to help you.

Alex00 conveniently stripped all EXIF info from the picture of the baby he uploaded. Who knows what aperture it was shot at. Could even be f/5.6. And without an IQ-degrading teleconverter. Nor does he explain or leave the information for what the settings were in-camera, or what was done in post-processing. How convenient.

I don' t know why you weren't able to see the EXIF info for my image. Try to download the photo again. Here's a screenshot of the info.

Image is taken at ISO100 1/180 f2.8 (no post processing at all)

OP has requested that this thread be cleaned up so I'm closing it temporarily. When it's reopened, please keep the petty bickering out of it. Thanks