I own the Fujinon 18-135mm on a XT-3 body. So I am wondering if the Tamron would be a good replacement or not. I also have the Fujinon 100-400 on an XT-4 and that is a superb combination.
I have read a few customer reviews on the new Tamron for Fujifilm and several say that this lens is equal or better than the Fujinon 18-135. A few suggest it is not. Looking for opinions of Hoggers. I am wondering if the different views are simply a matter of subjective opinion or whether perhaps the quality control on the Tamron is more uneven - hence some good lenses and some less good ones. Thoughts?
I think the bottom line is that most people experience positive outcomes, but there is a lot of individual variation due to factors such as age, physical condition, femur condition, weight, method of surgery, and attitude you take towards rehab/recovery. Myself, I rarely even think about my hips anymore, which is wonderful given my pre-surgery arthritic condition.
I have had both hips replaced and it has been very successful. I am very pleased with the results. When I had mine done, the surgeon used the traditional side cutting method. The front cutting method supposedly decreases the rehab time. My surgeon was aware of the newer approach but just felt more comfortable doing it the way he had been trained. Now, this was a few years back & not recently as you ask, but it shows that you can expect the results to work for quite a while. The "newer" method may be more mainstream by now... The rehab is no fun but well worth the long term benefits in my opinion.
I have seen Shutterfly offer free unlimited standard pages promos. Do they ever offer free unlimited pages for upgraded paper & layflat books? I am doing a 12X12 layflat book with 108 pages and I know they now offer 50% off with free shipping, which is very good. But free pages would be better unless it is only standard pages.
I pulled the trigger and got a used 12-100mm. Thanks to all.
12 grand? The lens costs $1200 new and used ones for $900? You must have meant 12 Franklins or 12 Benjamins.
amfoto1 wrote:
For ships the wide end of the range may be most helpful and the telephoto range less necessary.
But for birds, an even longer telephoto would be better. For birds 100mm or even 140mm on M4/3 will not be anywhere near enough "reach" a lot of the time.
I think the problem is that you are trying to do too much with one lens. You are trying to shoot two very different types of subjects that call for quite different lenses.
Instead of one relatively expensive ($1200) lens that only addresses the one purpose well and will be of limited use for the other, you might be better served buying two less expensive lenses.
For ships the wide end of the range may be most he... (
show quote)
You missed the part where I say I have a second camera for higher telephoto: a Fujifilm X-T4 with a 100-400mm Fuji lens. I do not like changing lenses, so I always have two cameras to cover my entire needed shooting spectrum.
I am thinking of buying an Olympus 12-100 f/4 Pro lenses for my OM-D E-M1m3 camera. I shoot mostly ships at variable distances and occasionally birds. The conventional wisdom seems to be that large apertures are not ideal for landscape photography because of depth of field issues. I see recommendations that the sharpest pictures are often a few higher f numbers than wide open, so I guess that would imply I shoot an f/4 lens at f/7 or so for optimum sharpness.
Sometimes ships are sideways at a distance so depth of field is of little importance. But sometimes I am close to a ship and shooting a large object that extends a considerable distance back to front or front to back.
(Finally) My question: is there much advantage to buying this lens over a 14-150/140mm lens from Olympus/Panasonic/Tamron that have slightly smaller apertures at end ranges? Forget the extra 40/50mm difference as I have that covered with a second camera. Does it being a PRO lens make it a better choice in terms of just native lens sharpness? Buy or not buy, that is the question....
I have the same problem but mine stems from using the viewfinder. My nose hits the joystick switch occasionally, moving the focus point.
Very good picture with nice symmetry
I primarily take pictures of birds and ships/tugs. Therefore I need both the high telephoto AND the wide-angle mm. I find the RX10 to be great for good light photos but not so great for evening and cloudy days. It is my backup camera that I take mainly when I am out and about and MIGHT see a bird or ship. Ships can be far (telephoto) or near (BIG!) and hence the 24-600mm. But when I am on an expedition to take pictures, I take my Fuji X-T4 with the 100-400 and my X-t3 with the 18-135. I am very happy with this coverage and the quality of the results. But I would give up a little bit of image quality for a single camera like the RX10 if I could get the low light results. Obviously I can do some post-processing improvement but such a camera would be worth my selling my current setup to buy. I am a 73 yr old amateur who values portability, convenience, and lighter weight highly. [I love my Sony RX100 for these reasons and its good image quality. Stuff it in a pocket JUST IN CASE...]
If I was micro managing, I would point out it's you're rather than your :-)