Tamron SP AF70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro

[benny]

Tamron announced yet another lens at this year's PMA show, the SP AF70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO.


Source: www.dpreview.com

This fast telezoom gets in close thanks to its 0.95m minimum focus distance, realizing a magnification ratio of 1:3.1 at 200mm. Plenty of coatings keep stray light to a minimum whilst a removable tripod mount and clutched focus ring (Canon and Nikon only) help speed up operations. Canon users will see the lens first with release scheduled for March.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0802/08...amron70200.asp

[wasabi8888]

Great news... not sure whether to choose this over the 180mm Macro though.. Although this will go well with the D3 as I do have anything to cover that range. Instead of buying Nikkor 70-200 2.8 and Tamron 180mm.. This may solve all the problems..

[hwchoy]

Jeffrey, this is a 1:3 "macro" whereas the 180mm macro is a "true" macro capable of 1:1 magnification. read everything and don't get confused when the word macro appears.

benny, does "clutched focus ring" means you have to push the focus ring to engage AF/MF ? which means no full time manual focus (as defined by canon)?

[Goondoo]

Jeffrey, this is a 1:3 "macro" whereas the 180mm macro is a "true" macro capable of 1:1 magnification. read everything and don't get confused when the word macro appears.

benny, does "clutched focus ring" means you have to push the focus ring to engage AF/MF ? which means no full time manual focus (as defined by canon)?

I was reading an article (which I couldn't remember where I read it),
Do we really need 1:1 in Digital Cameras today? Considering the megapixels and highly intelligent post editing software in today's technology.
Your thoughts maybe?

Personally, I prefer a prime when it comes to macro for the speed and quality, but zoom lenses will have its own advantage.

[wasabi8888]

I was reading an article (which I couldn't remember where I read it),
Do we really need 1:1 in Digital Cameras today? Considering the megapixels and highly intelligent post editing software in today's technology.
Your thoughts maybe?

Personally, I prefer a prime when it comes to macro for the speed and quality, but zoom lenses will have its own advantage.

Actually in layman terms, what is the difference between 1:1 and 1:3?

[hwchoy]

Do we really need 1:1 in Digital Cameras today? Considering the megapixels and highly intelligent post editing software in today's technology.
Your thoughts maybe?

megapix will never be enough. I am not even happy with 1:2 from the EF 50/2.5 macro lens, so you know what I think lah

[hwchoy]

Actually in layman terms, what is the difference between 1:1 and 1:3?

1:1 means at the minimum focusing distance, a 1cm object will be projected onto the sensor plane at a size of 1cm (hence 1:1) whereas a 1:3 lens will project an image 1/3 the object size hence only 3.33mm.

if you NEVER EVER shoot any thing smaller than 2 inches then it doesn't make a difference to you

[wasabi8888]

1:1 means at the minimum focusing distance, a 1cm object will be projected onto the sensor plane at a size of 1cm (hence 1:1) whereas a 1:3 lens will project an image 1/3 the object size hence only 3.33mm.

if you NEVER EVER shoot any thing smaller than 2 inches than it doesn't make a difference to you

Then it will make a difference to me.. since i shoot insects. thanks for the explanation

[hwchoy]

Then it will make a difference to me.. since i shoot insects. thanks for the explanation

Q.E.D.

[wasabi8888]

Q.E.D.

Choy,

Whats QED?

[valice]

Do we really need 1:1 in Digital Cameras today? Considering the megapixels and highly intelligent post editing software in today's technology.
Your thoughts maybe?

Takes 5min to shoot the picture using a 1:1 lens and then keep it. Take 30mins to achieve the exact same thing, which will include the cropping, gaussian blurring, then sharpening or USM.

So getting the first time right saves more time for me.

[hwchoy]

Choy,

Whats QED?

short for the latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum which means "that which was to be demonstrated" or in plain english, "there you have it!"

[hwchoy]

Takes 5min to shoot the picture using a 1:1 lens and then keep it. Take 30mins to achieve the exact same thing, which will include the cropping, gaussian blurring, then sharpening or USM.

So getting the first time right saves more time for me.

its not even the same thing.

[Goondoo]

short for the latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum which means "that which was to be demonstrated" or in plain english, "there you have it!"

Confirmed worst than a normal SMS lingo...

[luenny]

I was reading an article (which I couldn't remember where I read it),
Do we really need 1:1 in Digital Cameras today? Considering the megapixels and highly intelligent post editing software in today's technology.
Your thoughts maybe?

I think 1:1 is good - but sometimes not enough even. It's not the same when you take a photo and keep the original (maybe crop a bit on the side) than take a photo and heavily crop it to look nice. The latter doesn't give as much satisfaction, plus you probably can't print very big after cropping a lot.

[StanChung]

Agree with you Billy. QED-indeed is worse than sms lingo. tsk tsk... TYHI=there you have it!

My old Nikkor 80-200 is a 1:4 lens. So this 1:3 is not really a big step. Must see the MTF data. Some lenses have terrible performance at closest focussing distance.

[hwchoy]

I would strongly suggest you guys try googling for Q.E.D.