JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you accept the use of cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 173000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Pros:Excellent microcontrast and durability manageability Robustness
Cons:Pity you stopped at the report 1:2
Opinion:I've had a couple in the past but stupidly given away to leave place to the original medium canvases it seems that the earliest specimens are optically better (rumors that turned in mid-years 80) despite that compared with the competition (Vivitar 90mm F2, 5 Series 1 macro and Vivitar 90 F2,8) in the MTF tests of PF has been ranked second (a little less corrected in the T.A. F2 Red band,7 Real, and a couple of other small things) I much prefer the Tamron
Pros:Sharpness, aesthetics (see comment), compactness, construction.
Cons:Lack lens hood
Opinion:I hope to refer to the right optics, in the absence of reference photos. In fact, now on the net there are only more reviews of the later versions, having (I presume) the same optical pattern but constructively and aesthetically different. I refer to the very first type of the years 80, the compact and extremely clean design (in my opinion one of the most elegant lenses ever designed). All right, with the aesthetics of the optics do not make beautiful photos, but this also had excellent optical and constructive qualities. Too bad for the lack of lens hoods (the original one, sold separately, you can mount reversed on the barrel, pity that they had not yet invented the lock ring!). Mine has the Olympus OM bayonet, but with adapters (both for 4/3 and M4/3) I still use it today with full satisfaction. Of course Manual Focus, but this does not give the slightest annoyance, given the use. A substance, one of the glasses I wouldn't give up. Obviously on the 4/3 is a bit ' long ', but still usable, both in macro and for portraits.
Cons:No one ... to be a little picky there is a predisposition to flare, but it is even useful in the field of portraiture.
Opinion:Historic and well-known lens of Tamron. Very sharp to the edge even at full aperture, which can be used as a portrait lens. By cutting a little becomes extremely sharp and slightly too contrasty for portrait. Infinity maintains excellent performance, so it can be used also as optical for landscape; elective in his field, macro, demonstrates an excellent edge-to-edge sharpness from CT until the smaller apertures, which does not suffer too much of diffraction. Maximum reproduction ratio is "just" 1:2, but this design helps to save space. Compared to other macro has a very natural colour rendition, which makes it suitable for use in portraiture, as well as the relatively large opening. The lens was produced in two versions, the metal ring with vertical microscalanature whole 52b, and 52bb with increased use of plastics and plastic-coated knurled nut. Optically are equivalent, perhaps the first version gives an impression of strength.
Opinion:I made this point at a very low price (70 € with hood and filter UV included). The construction is solid without being too heavy or bulky. The sharpness already in TA is literally impressive and also allows the crop rather pushed, closed at 2.8 / 4 allows you almost to count the pixels one by one. Paradoxically excessive sharpness can be quite unpleasant in the portraits. A great goal for those wishing to approach the macro without investing big money or however it was looking for a quality fixed.
Pros:maximum brightness, light weight, with a strong helical extension to the prim. 1:2 without extension tubes, excellent overall yield also very closed to diaphragms, blurred beautiful, good construction.
Cons:my copy shows some modest all'elicoide game but worked very, lens hood is not supplied.
Opinion:as an alternative perspective, at the time I did not expect such good results. Also excellent for portrait and landscape, and of course macro photography. Very well with the color. The only drawback, probably motivated by the strong excursion the helix. Over time and tends to show some game to ring focus. My original works heavily since 1982.
The sample photos are selected automatically between all photos posted by JuzaPhoto members, using the camera and the lens selected in the techs. If you find evident errors (e.g. photos taken with cameras and lenses that are not available yet), you can contribute to improve the page by sending a private message to the user that has entered incorrect values in the photo caption.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
![[retina]](shared_files/layout/retina_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
