Maxxum lens

[picman]

Fortunately up to now I do not seem to have any reason to tweak my A700, I was just curious. I found it almost unbelievable that any of the visible screws could do that, which is why I asked. But just in case, it's good to know how it works. Cheers, Bob.

[Vidgamer]

[
You can make as many posts as you like on the subject but that does not change the fact that the 50mm's can deliver acceptable flash free results even at f2...

-Sonolta

... Okay I'll take the hint ... I'm gone.

Eh, you have to realize that he's a bit of a zealot about the camera. I would not take his comments personally.

I agree on the point about the 50mm/1.7 and f2, at least to say that it's still worthwhile. If the light is so low that I need f2, then having the 17-50/2.8 may not be good enough. I've resorted to the 50/1.7 at f2.0 not long ago at an indoor sports event, and the results weren't super sharp, but at least they weren't as blurry of a mess as it would have been. (Still not ideal, but what is? A much much more expensive camera/lens combo? Forget that.)

But except for the rare occasion, I'd rather have the convenience of the 17-50/2.8, which just performs.

[David Kilpatrick]

Don, you can occasionally overwhelm the capacity for coherent response with flood of jocks and cheerleaders. This is an alien activity to Brits, even if the female aliens are from Venus. I trust Rog will not feel feel philibustered out of the debate.

David

[Vidgamer]

...
LOL...What are you talking about? We are talking about 50mm prime lenses! On dpreview I am a sony basher and here I am a camera zealot??? Some of you forum folk do crack me up. Glad to see you also find the 50mm usable at f2.

-Sonolta

All I meant was that you seem overly passionate, like a zeolot, in making your point, even though I agree with you. I think I probably agreed with you more often than not on DPReview as well. I think you like to stir the puddin' and get a good debate going, but I think you scared Roger off in the process.

But yeah, I think people get too worked up over needing razor sharpness all the time. Sometimes you gotta work with what ya got, and sometimes that's Good Enough. If you don't print too large, you may find that the lack of sharpness at 100% view isn't really noticed in the print. Not everything is going to end up printed large... And if I use the 50/1.7 for something that I'll print large, the bokeh may still make the lens useful.

I just can't help but prefer the Tamron 17-50 for general use.

[rogprov]

I chose to bow out of this thread as I had nothing more to discuss. I was not "scared off" or "upset" and I did not take anything said personally. When two people are entrenched in their views there’s little point in continuing just for the sake of an argument. One is never going to persuade the other and, at times, it is just best to agree to differ

[Vidgamer]

Do I feel a group hug coming on?

[seanhoxx]

I have a KM 50 1.7 and have been very pleased with it so far. to me the color and the bokeh make up for any softness. Outside during the day I almost always have a high quality CPL. on it. Again I am new and learning, and doing this for fun, but so far I like what I see from the little guy.
Sean

[KevinBarrett]

I've ordered my Tamron 17-50/2.8 and it gets here Tuesday! I'm pretty excited about it , but I do wonder whether I'll continue to use my 50/1.7 after it arrives. After noticing the softness and horrible CA on my DT 18-70, I was loath to even put it on the camera again. For the past month or so the 50/1.7 has more or less stayed on the camera, despite needing something wider much of the time.

In another thread I shared two images from my 50 @ 1.7
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =749#p3699

[Vidgamer]

I've ordered my Tamron 17-50/2.8 and it gets here Tuesday! I'm pretty excited about it , but I do wonder whether I'll continue to use my 50/1.7 after it arrives.

I only use mine when I know I'll be in a low-light situation where a wide-angle isn't that useful. I've been known to carry both, just in case. Really, the 17-50 is just that good. But I am not against using the 50/1.7, it just becomes more of a special-use lens, I guess.

[Vidgamer]

Well, I wished I had my 50/1.7 with me tonight.... I seem to have misplaced it, so I went with my Tamron 17-50 to an indoor event where I knew the lighting would be poor. Well, it was worse than I thought it would be! Whoa! When you need f2.0 (or less), you need it.

[gedbrogan]

I rarely do technical checks on lenses but the discussions here led me to check out the 50 1.7 against the zeiss 16-80. Given this was a one off and i am not the most technically adept person, i am not sure the results could be published in a scientific journal. However the 50mm 1.7 seemed much sharper than the zeiss.I took a photo of a pub I frequented many many moons ago and the lettering on the pub name was significantly sharper on the 50mm 1.7. This was a cloudy day about 4 in the afternoon.

Gerard

[KevinBarrett]

A week and a half since I got the Tammy and it is growing on me. I took a risk cleaning the lens (it came with a spot of something on it). I could have returned it but B&H couldn't tell me when they'd have another. The spot cleaned right off and I breathed a big sigh of relief. It hardly comes off the camera now. I'll post some samples soon.