Re: [Leica] re: low light softness + 300mm Tamron

["Robert G. Stevens" <robsteve@hfx.andara.com>]

I have owned a Tamron 300 2.8 and found it to be a fine performer at par
with the 400mm 5.6 Telyt I had.  It was not as good though as my 280 2.8
APO Telyt or 400 2.8 APO Telyt.  I think the APO correction really makes a
difference in the contrast and colour saturation of the slides.  I think
Neal stated his 300mm Tamron was an F4 or so, probably a older lens than
the 300 2.8.

Regards,

Robert

At 08:57 AM 9/27/99 -0700, Joe Codispoti wrote:
>I have a Tamron 300/2.8 and am very satisfied. I do not use it very much as
>I have others less heavy (but slower).
>I found the photos taken with the Tamron to be more than good. In fact I
>compared them with my Contax 300/4 and wondered if spending the extra money
>for the latter was really worth it. Maybe the one owned by Neal was a lemon.
>
>Joseph Codispoti
>
>
>
>From: Jem Kime <jem.kime@cwcom.net>
>
>Neil,
>I have often thought a 300/2.8 lens would compliment my concert
>photography, indeed I've seen several other photographers using them in
>these situations.
>Was the lens you had the f2.8 lens? This is the cheapest option for
>Leicaflex use (with an Adaptall 2 mount), sometimes seen for a third of the
>Leica lens equivalent.
>Jem
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Neil Frankish <nfrnkish@dux4.tcd.ie>
>To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 2:14 AM
>Subject: [Leica] re: low light softness + 300mm Tamron
>
>
>> I cant remember what it was - probably 3.5 (if not 4) - but it was a very
>> horrible lens.
>>
>> From: Jem Kime <jem.kime@cwcom.net>
>>
>> Neil,
>> I have often thought a 300/2.8 lens would compliment my concert
>> photography, indeed I've seen several other photographers using them in
>> these situations.
>> Was the lens you had the f2.8 lens? This is the cheapest option for
>> Leicaflex use (with an Adaptall 2 mount), sometimes seen for a third of
>the
>> Leica lens equivalent.
>> Jem
>>
>>
>>
>
>