[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test

["Bernie Kubiak" <bkubs@comcast.net>]

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 listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body