|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
07-05-2014, 11:59 AM
|
| |
Yes, it is the Macro variant... Honestly, this lens is not good. Its quite good from 70 to 200, but at 300 is terribly soft. I can take better pictures by my 50-200WR at 200mm and upscaling it. Photos from this lens is very inconsistent, in terms of sharpness and contrast. Under same conditions is one photo quite sharp, while another is super soft. I can not count on it. And stop down to f8-f11 is absolutely must. The only one thing that I like on this lens is its close distance shooting capability. After I bought 55-300WR, I was using Tamron only for "close to macro" shots. Now, I have DFA 100WR MACRO for few months and its absolutelly marvelous. So this lens is in shop with used photo equipment and nobody wants.
If you are interested in macro, DFA 100WR or Tamron 90 Macro is my tip on the long end, and 35ltd on the wider end. Dont forget, that Tamron 70-300 isnt real macro, its only 1:2.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
07-05-2014, 04:45 AM
|
| |
Hi,
I would add my 2 cents.
I had started with Pentax with k-r too (and I have it now as a backup body). And this camera ( and high reputation in eyes of my grandpa - profesional photographer) started my love to Pentax.
But I have made some mistakes by buying some mediocre lenses and because bad used market here Im stuck with plenty of lenses that I'm not already using.
These are Tamron 18-200, Tamron 70-300, Pentax 50-200WR, kit lens 18-55 II and DA 35 2.4. - If I have skipped these stages, I would save almost $900. This is 2 used limited primes :) Same with body (I had started with DSLR with Oly E-450 double zoom kit). I never thought I would spend so much for photographic equipment. In other thread, forum member Kayaker-J has one nice point:
So, my advice is save and go with 35 ltd, if you like 35mm FL.
|
