F3.5 is all you will ever need.

[Gaz]

I've been trying to track down the source of an image displaying 8-star flares when I found the manual of my Tamron 35-70mm F3.5 CF Macro zoom lens. I pulled it out of the cupboard today because of the Monster adapter thread, as Im keen to reintroduce myself to Macro shooting, and this lens achieves 1:2.8 magnification at 70mm. Pretty handy!

Anyway, interesting that the manual for this lens provides the following advice:

So this struggle for more light was resolved 40 years ago. Sony's 90mm F2.8 Macro is two clicks above what is required.

Gaz

Edit:
I just popped the old Tamron on my A7iv and they might actually have a point. No additional light required...

• ILCE-7M4
• ----
• 1/3 sec
• ISO 125

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

This type of message is surely in a Toyota Corolla manual too..!

Thinking of trading up my 105mm Sigma now. Seems a little dangerous having something that is too fast...

 

[AlphaWorld]

I've been trying to track down the source of an image displaying 8-star flares when I found the manual of my Tamron 35-70mm F3.5 CF Macro zoom lens. I pulled it out of the cupboard today because of the Monster adapter thread, as Im keen to reintroduce myself to Macro shooting, and this lens achieves 1:2.8 magnification at 70mm. Pretty handy!

Anyway, interesting that the manual for this lens provides the following advice:

View attachment 33429

So this struggle for more light was resolved 40 years ago. Sony's 90mm F2.8 Macro is two clicks above what is required.

Gaz

Edit:
I just popped the old Tamron on my A7iv and they might actually have a point. No additional light required...
View attachment 33439

f/1.4 on ISO 100 is not equivalent to f/3.5 on ISO 400!

ISO 400 is two stops faster than ISO 100 - agreed? F/2.8 is two stops slower than f/1.4. F/3.5 is slower than f/2.8…

So that statement is a lie. You should sue!

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

The Redheads chick has never looked better! Those 'fast enough' Tamron lenses really bring the goods!

 

[spudhead]

Very few people really find the limits of their cameras or lenses new or old because it is far easier to simply buy the next thing because people assume the latest is always better. Much is said about old lenses not being able to give results on digital well I can tell you that is a load of you know what

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Very few people really find the limits of their cameras or lenses new or old because it is far easier to simply buy the next thing because people assume the latest is always better. Much is said about old lenses not being able to give results on digital well I can tell you that is a load of you know what

This is where you are wrong Gaz. The GMII lenses basically take the photo for you. You simply place it with camera body on the ground, press the little button on the top and it composes and activates the shutter for you. Even has a built in tripod and filters etc. Thankfully still no built in lens hood though, yuck I feel dirty just by mentioning those disgusting things.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I saw the same. I suppose they wanted to be cautious about over-stating the value of their f/3.5 lens, so they built about 2/3 stop into their statement!

What can I say - I lack your admirable restraint?

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

What can I say - I lack your admirable restraint?

It takes a lot to break young Timmy...

 

[AlphaWorld]

This is where you are wrong Gaz. The GMII lenses basically take the photo for you. You simply place it with camera body on the ground, press the little button on the top and it composes and activates the shutter for you. Even has a built in tripod and filters etc. Thankfully still no built in lens hood though, yuck I feel dirty just by mentioning those disgusting things.

Dang - my GM II must be faulty. I'll have to get it fixed under warranty.

Oh, maybe it's because I put the lens hood on - do you think that's the problem?