Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis
From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: My first lens(es)
Message-ID: <608@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-May-85 12:46:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.608
Posted: Thu May 16 12:46:39 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 14:41:57 EDT
References: <1015@ihuxb.UUCP> <117@harvard.ARPA>
Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Distribution: net
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 58
Summary: 

In article <117@harvard.ARPA> sasaki@harvard.ARPA (Marty Sasaki) writes:
>One thing to beware of with inexpensive zoom lenses in the 28-90mm range
>is distortion. Most of these lenses exhibit barrel distortion at one

etc...

This is really a response to two items (the other about Quantaray
35-205 I think).  We bought a used Tamron 28-135 lense a little while
ago.  So far we really like it (On Canon T70/AE1 and Fujica ST705/ST801
using two of the Tamron adapters).  At full wide I haven't really been
able to detect much curvature at all at the boundaries of a print.  The
image seems to be no less sharp even when blown up to 8x10 than any of
my other lenses (Sigma 28mm and Soligor 85-210) except perhaps for the
original Canon 1.8 50mm.  I haven't seen any vignetting.  The macro
capability seems to have good quality too.  I haven't used it with my
2x converter yet, but I imagine that, due to the geometry of the
Tamron, image quality will degrade somewhat more than the 2x on the
Soligor.  Mind you, if I was going over 135mm I would probably use the
2x on the Soligor instead anyways - then I'm up to f8 420mm instead
of something like f8-11 270mm).  There doesn't seem to be any conflict
between the Tamron and the T70 shutter actuation requirements.

Unfortunately, we didn't get an owner's manual so I cannot give you 
the precise specs.  This is what I do know for sure:

	- f4.5-5.6 
	- 28-135mm
	- 1:4-1:10 macro (comes in handy taking pictures of the tropical
			fish and flowers)
	- the exchangable mounts are quite handy and relatively
	  inexpensive (the Fujica ST mount was $21 CDN).  The
	  lense to adapter mount is very similar to the Canon bayonet
	  but a bit trickier.

The lense is somewhat pricy ($495 CDN new, $300 CDN used at Henry's -
they also threw in the Canon mount, and used hard-case at
that price) compared to something like a Kiron 28-135 ($399 CDN new).  
Used, it cost more than any of our other equipment.  It is also somewhat 
bigger and heavier than comparable lenses.  But this is not a problem 
for me with my Canons (particularly the T70), and my wife's Fujicas are 
very light to begin with so the result isn't too bad.  I think it's 
lighter than the older Soligor though.

The mechanism was a little sticky when we first got it, but this seems
to have disappeared.  Very solid lense.

I had done several months of research thru the photo-zines before
deciding on the Tamron - mainly because of some semi-raves on optical
quality on other Tamron lenses (eg: 28-105).  So far, we're quite 
pleased with it.  One lense photography is more fun and less hassle if 
you are just taking pictures of the place you are in rather than 
going places to take pictures.  We do somewhat more of the former.

The only problem now is who gets to use it - my wife or me.
-- 
Chris Lewis,
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321