Norm, I think you're on target with the "what works" approach but will echo the comments about the Tamron 28-300. I have the 28-200, which is fine but a friends 28-300 is disapointingly soft. If memory serves, that was also noted in reviews of the lens (and photography mags tend only to damn with faint praise). I have a Tamron macro as well, so I'm not adverse to the company's products. The shorter Tamron or Nikon glass would be preferable, but again -- if the system works for you, it works.
Bernie Norm Carver wrote: >I am in the midst of doing a basic comparison between my Hasselblad and the >new Kodak SLR Pro (14mb, full frame). I don't need a super accurate test, >just reasonably fair. My work is half color, half b&w with the end product >in books and large exhibition prints 20 to 40". > >I invite suggestions and/or critiques of my approach as outlined here: > >I gave up the dark room several years ago after too many decades. So I must >compare scanned film against digital RAW. Also, though it may invite scorn >from some purists, I am comparing the actual tools I work with most of the >time, not the ultimate options in lenses. These are: >Hblad 203fe with 60-120 zoom >Kodak SLRpro with Tamron 28-300. > ><snip> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
