DSLRUsers.com

Just noticed a small review of the Tamron 11-18 wide angle lens on SMH.
There quoting $1100 for this lens, can't see anyone paying that amount especially when the Sigma is several hundred $ cheaper.
There's also a review on the Epson P2000
http://www.smh.com.au/news/livewire/shoot-wide-and-hard/2005/10/19/1129401264639.html

Paul wrote:Just noticed a small review of the Tamron 11-18 wide angle lens on SMH.
There quoting $1100 for this lens, can't see anyone paying that amount especially when the Sigma is several hundred $ cheaper.
There's also a review on the Epson P2000
http://www.smh.com.au/news/livewire/shoot-wide-and-hard/2005/10/19/1129401264639.html

Paul,
Non stop looking on these lusts aren't you?
Have to be quick! otherwise after your wedding then it will be a challenge

I never stop lusting... it's good for the body, mind and soul!

Terry Lane, Sydney Morning Herald wrote:It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that a man - or a woman, for that matter - in possession of a good digital camera has only made the first payment on an expensive hobby.

Well said, Terry.

Greg B wrote:

Terry Lane, Sydney Morning Herald wrote:It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that a man - or a woman, for that matter - in possession of a good digital camera has only made the first payment on an expensive hobby.

Well said, Terry.

How do you think we felt at art school...

Over here the Tamron is a couple of dollars cheaper than the Sigma. Funny.
I've played with both. The sigma is more sturdy, and has autofocus override, the Tamron doesn't. The Sigma seems to want to put yellow tints on the pictures, I'm not sure why.
Tamron is really light (read plasicky), the Sigma is more like the kit lens. I'd have to play with the Sigma again and see about the yellow tint and how much it would bother me.

The epson P2000 is a wonderful little machine, but I realize that I don't really need it. With 2Gigs of card space, I can't imagine when that thing would become a necessity. All my money is going to go to image oriented tools. I'll get more mileage out of them. P2000 is a toy or luxury. Now if I did a lot of travelling, it would be another story, but even then 2 gigs per day is enough if you travel with a laptop.

dooda wrote:The epson P2000 is a wonderful little machine, but I realize that I don't really need it. With 2Gigs of card space, I can't imagine when that thing would become a necessity. All my money is going to go to image oriented tools. I'll get more mileage out of them. P2000 is a toy or luxury. Now if I did a lot of travelling, it would be another story, but even then 2 gigs per day is enough if you travel with a laptop.

Dave

Do you shoot raw? I can fill 3 gigs easily in a day and have 6 gb of cards just in case

I sure do (shoot in Raw). I can't imagine what people do with all of their photos. When I take too many photos in a day it sort of devalues the experience. I was with some people one day and this guy mentioned that he'll go out and take 350 shots. 350? what in the sam hell does he DO with them all? Just stick them on disks and then sit back and and shiver euphorically at the massive amount of memory he's using? The Delete button is my best friend. I like to keep the amount of snaps I take in manageable bites, with most shots being as memorable as possible.

If I'm taking lots of snaps of family, people, weddings etc, I just shoot in JPEG, it's not worth it to go through all of those pictures in Raw (Raw shots aren't generally any good until tweaked atleast a little).
Sorry if this seems a little brash, but I've always been confounded and never vocalized it until now.

So if you shoot in RAW, and can easily fill 3 gigs of Raw photos in a day, do you really have time to edit them all? Obviously there are circumstances, I'm just not familiar with them.