[Kingsofronin]

Listen....here's the deal.

I just hate seeing people waste money on "step-up" gear.
If youre really into photography, I hate to see you be limited
by a shitty lens. I hate when people buy an "ok" lens
and then upgrade 4 or 5 times just to finally get the lens they
should have bought in the first place.

I don't really see how you proceed to the conclusion that i have a high ego.
This is simply a message board. Youve never seen me or listened to me in real
life, youre basing your opinion off of maybe 1 or 2 typed messages that I sent
over the internet. I do have a lot of confidence, but I by no means have a cocky
attitude. I'm just a logical, confident young lad.


Loosen up, you geezers.

[TaoMaas]

As I said earlier, I have the earlier version of this Tamron and I think it does a respectable job, both in it's telephoto range and in it's macro settings. In this range, I also have 4 Pentax prime lenses (including a macro and a 200mm A*), 3 Tokina zooms, and an old 90-180 Vivitar Series 1 flat field zoom. So what's your basis of comparison to be calling the Tamron a crappy lens? You don't list a single telephoto among your gear. Are you basing your opinion on reviews you've read online or do you have some real-world experience?

[egordon99]

WTH are you talking about? The dude buys a consumer 70-300mm zoom, because he obviously wants something that goes out to 300mm and can't spend ~$1000 on a "fixed aperture lens" (perhaps you meant "fixed focal length" lens? or "constant aperture" ?)
How the heck is a f/1.4 50mm prime lens going to get him the reach he wants????
Maybe he has been playing with the kit lens and decided he wants more reach but on a budget? If he said "I have the kit lens, and I love the 50mm focal length, but want better quality", then obviously the FA 50mm would be a great (and INEXPENSIVE choice)

Just because I only like to play on $3K guitars, doesn't mean I look down upon that 15 year old kid who is excited about buying his first guitar....That is ARROGANCE. Maybe by the time you can go buy a beer legally, you'll mature a bit. Until then, enjoy your "fixed aperture lens" (mirror lens, anyone?)

Well. I'm a photo snob. I cannot stand anything other than a fixed aperture lens. I'm sorry. Listen man. Buy a Pentax 50mm/1.4 and compare the shots to that of your Tamron f/4-5.6. You'll see what youre missing.

As for the guy who said he'd be missing shots saving money for the better lens:
I'd rather be "missing shots", than getting the shots with such a shitty lens.
And where are the shots going anyways? I find myself to have plenty of oppurtunities
for shots, and I get them more than just once. The guy obviously already has the
kit lens, so let him use that until he can save enough for the prime.


Dont be an ass to people with high standards.

Uhhhh, don't be an ass to someone with less money for gear than you...Maybe he doesn't want a 50mm prime lens? Maybe he wants a 70-300mm zoom lens?????
Methinks you are somewhat confused about photography and lenses.

[RoxnDox]

Listen....here's the deal.

I just hate seeing people waste money on "step-up" gear.
If youre really into photography, I hate to see you be limited
by a shitty lens. I hate when people buy an "ok" lens
and then upgrade 4 or 5 times just to finally get the lens they
should have bought in the first place.

I don't really see how you proceed to the conclusion that i have a high ego.
This is simply a message board. Youve never seen me or listened to me in real
life, youre basing your opinion off of maybe 1 or 2 typed messages that I sent
over the internet. I do have a lot of confidence, but I by no means have a cocky
attitude. I'm just a logical, confident young lad.


Loosen up, you geezers.

Well, sonny-boy, have you considered that not everybody is going to have the desire or need to step up to higher end lenses? Not all photos require top-end glass. And just because the OP's choice doesn't measure up to your standards certainly doesn't make it "shitty". As a followup - why on earth should it matter to you how many lenses somebody else purchases, or the reasons they do so???

For attitude, your typed messages most certainly project a picture of arrogance and condescension towards those who don't set their photographic standards as high as you do. Maybe you don't intend for it to sound that way, but rest assured you have been projecting that image. Stop a moment and ask yourself if the reaction you've gotten is everyone else's fault, or if maybe you did something to provoke the same reaction from so many people...

Jim "just another geezer"

[egordon99]

I just turned 30, does that make me a geezer?
Seriously, your lens collection doesn't exactly scream "I have amazing taste in lenses and only buy the best"

18-55 - Kit lens. Decent, but it's not a "fixed aperture" (nor constant aperture/fixed focal length)

16-45 - Pretty good lens from what I've seen, but it's a zoom (gasp!) and ONLY f/4

40mm Pancake - Great Limited lens, constant focal length, but "only" f/2.8 (I believe?)

Like TaoMass mentioned, you don't even have any lenses longer than 55mm, so not sure how you can come off dissing his choice of the Tamron. Maybe your shooting style doesn't need anything that long, fine! But some people like having some reach, but don't have thousands of dollars to get them fast telephoto lenses. So they make do (and make great pictures) with what they can afford. Just like great music has been made on inexpensive guitars. It's much more the photographer than the gear, and I think your (supposed) fixation on great glass is more to compensate for your lack of photographic skills. I guess you don't have ANY telephoto glass because you're saving up the $3K for that 300mm f2.8...Enjoy missing those shots!

[Kingsofronin]

If you read my message a little more carefully you'll see I said, "If youre really into photography...".

I have considered that. It's just if the person is really into photography,
they should buy the best lens out there. Because youre eventually just
going to buy it anyways. You'd just be wasting money upgrading until
finally, you cant upgrade anymore.

THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE!!!
He could've bought a the top of the line telephoto lens for 1200 bucks...
but he no longer has the money because he bought the bottom of the barrell
200 dollar lens, then wanted to get one a little better so he got 400 dollar lens.
Then he wanted a better one so he got a 600 dollar lens. Well...by this time he
couldve had the best lens on the market, but instead he has 3 average ones.

Thats what im talking about. I just hate seeing people making step up investments,
when they couldve have just gotten the best to start out with and been completely
happy from the get go.

But if its not something youre 1200 dollar serious about, then just buy something
that suits how serious you are.


Buy for your needs. That is all.

[Kingsofronin]

AND I have 2 of the 3 Pentax f/2.8 lenses on preorder.

I am content on waiting a month to get the telephoto's I want.

[egordon99]

OK, perhaps his needs are simple, he doesn't NEED a $3K telephoto lens. Your first post stated "Shouldve saved your money for a better lens."
The problem is that if you're looking to buy something that goes out to 300mm, there really are only ~3 choices. Something like the Tamron for ~$150 (Sigma makes a similar lens) which is perfectly serviceable (even if you are fairly serious about photography). The next step up would be something like the Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0 (or maybe the 70-200mm f/2.8), but these are ~$1K. And then ~$3K if you want something f/2.8.

There really isn't much "middle" ground where he will then upgrade to a $400 lens, then a $600 lens, and so on.... If he decides he NEEDS the best image quality (and/or the speed) he'll then only have $150 invested which he could come close to recouping by selling it (the loss he'll take could be considered a "rental" fee )

After your first post, you were insisting he should have bought a 50mm prime lens. (1)That lens is very close in price to the Tamron, and (2)NOT WHAT HE WANTED.... Maybe you like a 50mm prime lens (I do, although I have been using my 35mm f/2.0 more now), but he wanted something that goes out to 300mm....

[rhermans]

I broke down tonight and ordered my first lens (outside of the kit) - the Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di. I feel like a kid waiting for Santa.

Todd

Congrats, got the same one and has been one of my favorites.
It's not a great lens, but it sure ain't a bad one, especially not for the price it costs.
Only beware of hard contrast because the CA at 300mm is to much .

Oh yes the macro isn't bad either.

[thrice]

I have an FA50/1.4 and its great when I have time to extremely manually zoom (walk closer, walk farther away) but I missed some really great wildlife shots this weekend because I couldn't walk that fast or get that close, so I'm saving for a larger zoom.

But then I'm as new as anyone to this and by no means an expert.

[TaoMaas]

AND I have 2 of the 3 Pentax f/2.8 lenses on preorder.

I am content on waiting a month to get the telephoto's I want.

A month? Heck, if it's only a matter of waiting a month to get an f2.8, you're right...wait a bit. When I was starting out in photography, I had a family to support so it was more like 10 years before I could afford good glass. Not to mention that if you were REALLY serious about photography, nothing less than a Leica would do.

[egordon99]

I think our little friend is just out of high school, still living at home and working at somewhere like Best Buy (or Radio Shack), so all of his $10/hour take home can go towards his f/2.8 lenses
Us "geezers" have Mortgage payments, insurance, car payments, water/electric/gas/sewer/trash/phone/DSL/doggie good/people food to pay for

[Romoman]

I just got my K100D and bought this lens, but as a Quantaray (I'm pretty sure they are the same). It's a great lens. I took some Macro photos around the house (flowers) and used it for some racing action this weekend. Seemed great to me. I'm a real beginner, but I was very happy with it! I'm sure you're going to enjoy it.

[Ivan Glisin]

But if its not something youre 1200 dollar serious about, then just buy something that suits how serious you are.

Very interesting observation.

Do you really believe that being a serious photographer has anything to do with how much money one spends on equipment? (If you were trying to say serious shopper instead I apologize for not understanding your post correctly.)

As you know I am sure, so many famous photographers have produced exceptional results using modest equipment most of us would simply dismiss without a second thought as "junk" a good photograph simply can not be taken with. I wish you are right, but unfortunately "seriousness" simply does not have a price tag attached to it.

However, I am ready to change my mind: could you please provide links to your photo gallery or published work? I'll be delighted to see your photographs taken using serious (and naturally expensive) equipment, producing amazing results not possible to achieve using cheap equipment.

Well. I'm a photo snob. I cannot stand anything other than a fixed aperture lens.


Dont be an ass to people with high standards.

This wisdom coming from a 19y/o whose kit consists of two zooms (redundant zooms I might add) and a 40mm pancake.

Ron White has this guys number. "You can't fix stupid."