According provided by Tamron SP 1: 2.5 lens 90mm Tele Macro BBAR MC 52B N / AIl (for Nikon) many thanks to Vladimir Tarasyuk.
Tamron SP 1: 2.5 90mm Tele Macro BBAR MC 52B N / AI
Tamron SP 1: 2.5 90mm Tele Macro 27° The BBAR MC 49∅ 52B N / AI is an excellent all-metal prime lens designed primarily for macro photography. This review presents a version of the lens for use with Nikon cameras. The Tamron 90 / 2.5 52B was available with the Tamron Adaptall-2 interchangeable shank system, allowing it to be used on virtually any system.
| Review Instance Name | Tamron SP 1: 2.5 90mm Tele Macro 27° BBAR MC 49∅ 52B N / AI No.511100 |
| A type | manual fixed focal length macro lens |
| Front Filter Diameter | 49mm (!) Using Tamron Genuine 23FH hood - 58mm |
| Focal length | 90 mm, EGF for cameras Nikon DX 135 mm, EGF for Nikon CX 240mm cameras |
| Designed by | for film cameras, has a system of interchangeable shanks Tamron Adaptall-2 |
| Number of aperture blades | 8 pieces |
| Tags | aperture, focusing distance, magnification, DOF |
| Diaphragm | F / 2.5-f / 32 |
| MDF | 0.39 m, maximal magnification factor 1: 2. Using a Tamron SP 2X tele-converter 01F macro extender or similar and compatible maximum magnification is 1: 1 |
| The weight | 420 g |
| Optical design | 8 elements in 6 groups, enlightenment BBAR MC |
| Lens hood | 23FH |
| Manufacturer country | Japan, 1979-1988 |
Aperture ring and focus rubberized. The focus ring rotates 360 degrees (a full revolution around the axis). Focusing is smooth; during focusing, the trunk of the lens lengthens noticeably, while the front lens does not rotate. Also, during focusing, the focus ring itself shifts forward, but the rear lens remains stationary.
The Tamron 90 / 2.5 52B has a focusing distance scale in meters and feet, as well as a depth of field scale for f / 16 and f / 32. Two special scales are responsible for the magnification factor during macro photography. One of them shows the available magnification ratio in normal mode, without using a macro-extender. In this case, you can get a maximum magnification ratio of 1: 2, which is pretty good. If you use the 'Tamron Extension Tube for SP 90 / 2.5 (1: 2-1: 1)' macro extender (it can be a regular macro ring of a certain length), you can get a 1: 1 magnification. Using such an extender, the lens can operate only in macro mode with a magnification ratio from 1: 5 to 1: 1.
The lens aperture consists of 8 blades. At intermediate values between F / 2.5 and F / 5.6, the petals form a serrated hole (circular saw). On more closed values, starting at F / 5.6 - a regular polygon. In the gallery, there is a photo of multi-colored light bulbs showing jagged edges. It would be nice if we added another aperture blade and made the aperture more round. F-values are toggled with clicks. There are red letters 'AE' next to the F / 32 mark, which denote the ability to use the lens in some auto modes with some Nikon film cameras.
Tamron 90 / 2.5 52B uses a special 'BBAR MC'' multi-coating - Broad Band ANTI Rreflection Multi Coating (deep anti-glare multi-enlightenment). The front lens shines with a pronounced aquamarine (the marks on the scale with feet are the same color), the rear one is lilac. To further reduce the amount of glare, you can use a hood that is screwed into the thread of the front filter. The native 23FH hood is metallic and uses 58mm filters or caps while the filter diameter is only 49mm.
The Tamron 90 / 2.5 52B shows good sharpness already at f / 2.5 and excellent from f / 4. The lens is sharp at both close and long focusing distances. Only at very closed apertures, such as f / 22, f / 32, diffraction partially 'eats up' the detail.
The optimal relative aperture when working from infinity to a magnification ratio of 1: 4 is F / 8, if a large multiplicity is needed, then it is optimal to use F / 11.
No noticeable distortion, good color rendering, and overall very nice drawing. True, in the backlight, the lens can still catch glare. Also, on heavily covered apertures in the center of the frame, depending on the lighting, it may appear blue flare. An example of such a glare is clearly visible in the picture with a bump.
Overall Tamron 90 / 2.5 52B is functionally similar to Vivitar Series 1 90mm 1: 2.5 VMC Macro (aka Tokina AT-X Macro 90mm 1: 2.5). Subsequently, the 52B model was replaced by the 52BB model, which retained the same optical design, only the frame rim changed.
Source files can download from this link (44 photos in '.ARW' format, 1 Gb). On the Sony a7 camera, I used a lens using a Nikon F - Sony E adapter. How to use old manual lenses on modern Nikon DSC is described in the section about AI-S.
Tamron SP 1: 2.5 90mm Tele Macro BBAR MC 52B N / AI
My experience
It is stated that Tamron 90 / 2.5 52B is great for portraiture. On one of the sites it is even indicated that the Tamron 90 / 2.5 52B - 'Super portrait'. As for the created image quality, there are no problems, but I have already written more than once that using macro lenses for portrait photography is hampered by the small spacing of the focusing ring at the distance range that is most often used for portraits. This time I used a Tamron 90 / 2.5 52B Macro lens on the Sony a7, which has an excellent pick function (highlighting sharp areas in the photo). But even with this feature at F / 2.5, portraits are pretty tricky. The slightest touch of the focusing ring dramatically shifts the depth of field. As a result, I was finally disappointed in macro portrait photography. Of course, no one forbids the use of Tamron 90 / 2.5 52B in this genre, and if you get used to it, you may not notice the discomfort. At the same time, purely for portraits, classic manual portrait lenses of the 85-135 / 1.4-1.8-2-3.5 class are much more suitable.
Catalog of modern Tamron lenses can look at this link.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Results
Once again, the Tamron SP (Super Performance) lens did not disappoint and showed high image quality and build quality. I recommend to all fans of 'sharper' lenses.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
N-yeah .. Lens worthy ..
In general, Tamronrv has excellent color reproduction and soft colors.
As you can see from the examples in the photo, this Tamron is no exception ..
sigma, tamron, canon and others like them do not know how to make good lenses!
only Nikon, Zeiss and the USSR are cool!
Thought for a long time?
I can't say for 100%, but it seems to me that of the “non-native” lenses on the Nikon system, it is the Tamron lenses that give the color closest to the native Nikorr lenses
And I do not agree ..
I am guided, of course, by a subjective opinion - but according to my home park of lenses (I have 8 of them) I also formed a certain opinion.
Native Nikkors (3 pieces - 18-55, 55-200 and 18-200) seem to be good (yes, if we compare with similar whales of competitors - then without talking - Nikon is far ahead - even whale optics in Nikon are of higher quality than competitors), but native optics give some cold tones .. Sharpness is excellent, but color rendition goes to the cold part ...
The same Tamrons - in terms of sharpness they are slightly inferior to Nikkors, but in tones, in softness, in color, they are much more pleasant. The tone is warmer, more affable than that of the Nikkors.
But Tamron from my point of view would be perfect in everything (I always tried to use Tamrons) if Sigma did not exist .. In the first place I would put Sigma.
The softness of tones, colors (sharpness in my budget is true, too - at the level of Tamron, nigga Nikkoram) - I like everything the most. Very similar to Tamron - but it seems that the tones are even warmer ..
On one infe I read that they seem to have the same optical circuits with Tamrons, on another infe they write that Sigma seems to have the most complicated design - therefore, in terms of reliability (mechanically), they seem to be the least reliable .. How is it really there - I don't know ... According to reviews I read that they have used it for 3 and 5 years and are still working.
They said that Tamronov and Sigma have one owner (like Sonya, or something - holds 50% of the shares) - I don't know for sure, I was not interested (although maybe that's why they are so similar to each other)
In general, I formed an opinion for myself - for me Sigma is in the first place, Tamron is in second.
But I respect both of them. Tamron is excellent, but Sigma still seems to be a little better ...)
I don’t use my native Nikon optics at all, I don’t like it.
Tamron 17-50 2.8 is very sharp, nikkor doesn’t have such razor glass, well no. Yes, it’s a little slow autofocus, but with regards to sharpness, native glasses are inferior.
that is, Nikonovsky 17-50 / 2,8 and 24-70 / 2,8 you have not tried.
This one (17-50) is perhaps the only Nikonovsky who has not tried it.
But on the basis of all the previous ones, I don’t have any reason to believe that it will be any different from the other 15 Nikon's that I tried.
24-70 is one of the most common - I don't think there is someone who would not try it - it is no different from any other Nikon glass - sharpness is the only advantage. There are no tones, no softness, no color rendering, as in any other Nikon glass.
I tried it, and as a result I preferred the Tamron 17-50 2.8, since the Nikkor 17-55 2.8 wins only in focusing speed, which is not critical for me. Taking into account the price difference and the “two-color” picture of the 17-55, Tamron won. I also use native lenses. fixes, I liked 80-200 2.8, 85s are good. As for me, not all Nikkor lenses are successful, there are very boring and indecently expensive ones, so Tamrons and Sigma will seriously compete. The hour is close when the Chinese will make excellent glasses and then the price will decide a lot. My first 17-50 was made in Japan, had a bek and after 1,5 years the rubber stretched. Having sold it, I bought a "Chinese" and was amazed at the quality of the assembly and the picture, well, the rubber band is more alive than all the living. (Tamron 17- 50 2,8 without stabilizer).
Good lenses, even Chinese, though Japanese cannot be cheap: 1. Glass processing is expensive and slow. 2. Tolerances in the manufacture and assembly are not for children.
And Nikon DC 105/2 fucks any covered Tamron on an open hole.
To judge all nikors by 55-200 is very strong and bold and I will add stupid. I once got such a lens for a load, I didn't have a nasty lens, I was dying and shook it off for nothing ...
But 18-55 is very, very good, of course for its segment and its price niche ...
"Color closest to native Nikorr lenses"
I would say Korea - "the color is the most distant from native Nikorra lenses and the closest to the real color of the photographed composition"
Nikkors give colors that are not quite similar to real ones. Tamrons and Sigma transmit colors that are really much closer to real ones.
ah, if it had AF on it, and for the money that they ask for it, you can buy three Jupiters-37, and who needs a makrik, it's better to take Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 60mm 1: 2.8
photo from the asset from the review on the d610
f / 2.5
f / 4
f / 2.5
also f / 2.5
Good night to everyone, regarding the color rendition, why not take different lenses and take a single color palette at the same settings and see.
millions of such tests posted on the internet
And I am sure that each of the owners of the lenses also did this - on the basis of this, everyone had an opinion (based on obvious data) about the lenses.
If you want to get a stable commercial result - native autofocus optics. And if you want an unusual picture - Soviet manual. Zeiss - beyond good and evil ...
No way
Auto-focus - yes, no doubt
But "native" - ie Nikonovskaya - very unimportant in color rendering.
I put my Nikkors in a box, I don’t use it anymore, and I’m unlikely to ever contact them.
If you want a good commercial result, then only specialized lenses (Tamron or Sigma - at least the softness and color rendition are better than they have ever seen. And Nikon's native optics are at the level of the same native alternatives from Sony or Kenon, only a little better in sharpness, but for artistic purposes it is not suitable.That is, formally say, native optics is normal - if there is no better quality)
Zeiss - yes, out of competition (in this regard, some Sony glasses made using Zeiss technology also tear all competitors apart)
Judging Nikon's optics by a pair of whale lenses is powerful!
On budget optics judged by a pair of whales
Other optics are judged by similarly comparable ones.
Still cold tones are present in all Nikon's optics.
And if you compare with those who specialize in optics (like Zeiss, Tamron or Sigma), then against Nikon this is heaven and earth .. Let Zeiss and more expensive, but Tamron and Sigma are superior to Nikon's optics, which are twice as expensive.
Tamron for 4 thousand gives the picture quality better than Nikkor for 17 thousand UAH. (As the same Nikonovsky 18-200 costs 17 thousand UAH, and Tamron 4500 UAH and the tone is nicer)
Nikon has good optics, of course (when compared with some Sony and Kenon) - but still Tamron, alas, is better.
Therefore, I do not use Nikonrovsky optics - it just lies folded in a box
and you are funny! )))
just because you don’t like the natural tones of nikon and you prefer the overheated tones of the same sigma does not say that nikon is bad. )))
On the contrary.
I don't like color distortion by Nikon glasses
And I like the softness and natural tones (as close as possible to the original colors) of Tamron and Sigma.
Do not try to attribute your personal fantasies to another.
I did not say that Nikon is bad (You yourself have already begun to invent - you are probably about 16 years old, usually at that age fantasy is so developed).
I said that Nikon is excellent glasses - in comparison with Sony's analogues (of course, not Zeiss) or Kenon ..
But Tamron or Sigma, alas, is still better
A stream of subjectivity and hope for the “masterful” softness and warmth of tones…. learn to photograph with what you have, and not find fault with what you did not hold in your hands.
That's exactly what we have and are able to take pictures
Therefore, Nikkors are folded into a box - like glasses are unimportant (despite its price of 17 UAH - just an overpayment for the brand and nothing more - this price has nothing to do with the quality itself .. Tamron of the same quality as this Nikon should cost 000 UAH, because Tamron for UAH 1500 gives better color rendering than Nikkor for 4000-17 23 (there were no other lenses)
No wonder, by the way, because whoever bought Nikkor - it is impossible to sell - no one will buy.
And it's not for nothing that the most expensive and high-quality glasses of a high price range are, alas, Sigma .. (
Remove the inscription "Nikkor" from Nikkor glasses and the price would fall 6 times - it's no secret that the glasses themselves are not very good
Anatoly, you would not be dishonored when talking about Nikon optics having two of the cheapest glass and one medium-sized super zoom. Even the superfluous 18-300 3,5-5,6 cannot be the standard of quality in any way. I wish you to get a normal Nikon lens and stop praying for cheap Nikkor substitutes. Well, Zeiss are strong when they are Zeiss and fixes, and when they are Sony and even zooms, then they are not much different from their like.
Nikon 18-200 costs 17 UAH - one cannot say that it is the cheapest.
This time
And secondly, Nikon's budget glasses lose to Tamron's budget glasses.
Mid-price Nikon glasses lose again ... budget Tamron glasses ..)
So it’s better you don’t be dishonored except blind fanaticism for Nikon, I don’t see anything ..
Anatoly, I'm sorry, but the current price of nikkor 18-200 is hardly such a high indicator of its quality, since in December 2013 it cost UAH 5500, which is not that much. Its current price is, rather, a consequence of the low rate of the nat. currency, not its real value (of course, IMHO).
all the costs of lenses at any time are the result of national currency rates
At one time one price, at another moment another
But the relative order of prices and the hierarchy still remains the same
Exactly. Therefore, if we take the relative order of prices, then Nikkor 18-200 is not in the “top”, and even if now it costs ~ 17000 UAH, this is by no means an indicator of its quality, and judging by it the entire line of Nikon lenses, according to to say the least, it is incorrect.
Zeiss - when they are Sonya (even without the Zeiss inscription) - even if they are zooms - you would at least hold them in your hands before writing your nonsense ..
These are some of the best glasses - at the level of the original Zeiss.
What kind of comparison with "that is not much different from their kind." (in particular, with the Nikkors) in general there can be talk ..
You would at least have seen and tried at least one such glass - you would have said something completely different and would not have made yourself laugh at the Zeiss….
I'll write it down here https://radojuva.com.ua/2015/02/comments-under-fire/
Anatoly, if you want to prove something - upload your photos, people will appreciate
you don't need to write nonsense ...
So do not write nonsense.
18-200 is a station wagon, it will be taken by many amateurs, immediately after a soap box and therefore the price is high, it is not a matter of quality, but of demand. Such a versatile person cannot give a high-quality picture, this is not his task, his task is to save the owner from the need to carry many lenses with him, to constantly clean the matrix and not bother at all. What is the query is the result :)
When I need to shoot quickly and efficiently - Nikkor. And when I go into the forest, take off the flowers, leaves - I take Helios.
And everything related to color - capture one + photoshop + imagenomic - any ordinary photo becomes a masterpiece. But if I missed focus ...
PS. Speaking of Nikkor, I mean fast fixes! And not whale or conditionally high-aperture, well, and generally all sorts of zooms ...
Nikkor is a stable result! If I had a lot of money, I would definitely buy their top-end autofocus Nikkor analogs to Zeiss Otus.
If the question is precisely in the color rendition, then technically it is possible to make reference photos with two lenses, after which, using the appropriate software and (preferably) a good monitor, make the setting “like a tamron” either for the software you are using or in general the setting that is poured into the camera (there is color profile settings, for example, you can also customize the BB). In practice, I did not need it, and it is unlikely that it exists at all (otherwise it would already be on the network, now there are just settings in the network from the “make good” series, but not “nikor like tamron), but having a certain perseverance and the right approach should be a lot.
Stocked up popcorn)))
Anatoly, if not a secret, but what Tamron lenses do you have? Well, to understand what you are comparing to ..
If you read carefully, you should have read and understood that the average Tamron is comparable in quality to the top nikkors, the budget Tamron gives the same quality as the mid-priced Nikkor, etc.
Therefore, the fact that you look only at the price and try to compare only within the same price range shows that you did not hold these glasses in your hands and just hi to the marketers ..)
Try it yourself - you will see
Already see clearly :)))
From time to time (and especially when you need really high-quality pictures) - you will see the light, do not worry ..))
What right are you peremptory! )))) If anything, here are my personal glasses:
1) Tamron SP 70-200mm F / 2.8 Di VC USD
2) Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1: 1 Macro
So I'm not familiar with tamrons by hearsay. And I have my own opinion about them, which, by the way, did not express it here ...
But you have moved away from an essentially simple question ... Why?
Good glass.
Similar Nikkors freely wash in prices 3 times higher
I’m very interested in where you got 18-200, or rather why? having 18-55,55-200 on hand, and it’s not possible to sell for two reasons, this is the price and they are not needed, he had the opportunity to shoot the 18-200 tamron so he would lose the sharpness and tenacity of the focus to Nikor 18-55, and after that Soap that gave Tamron look and compare color reproduction I did not want.
yes, Nikkorovskie glasses are hard to sell
Nobody really buys them from hand.
By the way, 18-55 nikkor is really a good lens
In sharpness and lack of soap, at least the whale rivals Sony and Kenon leaves far behind.
“I’m very interested in where you got 18-200, or rather why? "- because you won't sell them to anyone)))
So these three unfortunate objects from Nikon are lying in a box.
Of course, nobody will shoot them (the color rendition is far from reality, sharpness is good)
I work with Tamrons and primarily with Sigma.
when I asked why I had in mind why bought.
probably in order to evaluate the quality of their native optics, to be disappointed in it, and switch to sigma..tamrons with a clear conscience, convincing themselves and others that they did the right thing :-))
(Sorry for offtop)
It has already been said - because, like many others, he fell for marketers with their fables about Nikonor glass.
The result is obvious - it falls flat.
Nikon glasses are normal for amateur photography, but Nikon optics are not suitable for good high-quality images (you have to sit in processors too much and bring photos back to normal)
Something always disturbs a bad dancer.
Sigma 17-50 2.8-cool! Without spitting on other systems. That's cool in itself, even if you shake ....) Gentlemen, pray calmly each to his god.
Anatoly, you used some kind of Nikkor fix and tamron fixes. As I understand it, you compared ONLY the zoom lenses of the two systems? And I would also like to know which camera you shoot?
Of course, he used both fixes and zooms
On the basis of which there was an absolute opinion.
Have you decided to simply pour from empty to empty? (just ask the same questions on the third or fourth circle, like they don’t understand something?)
If a person describes a certain opinion, then it is obvious that this opinion is already formed on some facts and there is sufficient experience on this ..
Troll Anatole.
C'mon, at first it was even fun.
I honestly expected more :)
Well, at least it’s not sad, and that’s the point. ;))
Anatrollly!
100% :))) I really think that a person has the Kenon system and he decided to control Nikonov :)
As Olezhische said: “convincing myself and others that I did the right thing” :)
I thought serious people, I thought they were holding the objective in their hands, I thought they were judging by the optics really by hearsay - but it turned out to be ordinary trolls .. ((
And they didn’t find anything better to “save face” as just “stupidly sit down” ...
Nice in places, but as Stanislavsky said - “I don’t believe!”
Anatoly, if you look at it, it is very subjective to take and judge the entire Nikon / Tamron SYSTEM by lenses using several lenses like this, because here you will see stones in your garden more than once.
Who did the analogy move ?, the guys asked YOU to tell you what tamroni and sigmi you have, plus which camera you can shoot and put a couple of photos as a model so that you can better understand you, but you don’t seem to hear. Sin YOU take offense.
Sorry for the insult did not hold back.
Good evening gentlemen, photographers, I have a couple of tamrons and Nikkor, I want to say that each lens itself is good, the photo is bad artist who can not squeeze a picture from the lens.
Kenon system, lenses: Nikkor 105mm 2,5; Tamron 80-210mm 3,8-4; 28-75mm 2,8. Sorry for the offtop. Arkady, a cool reviewer!
Hmm ...
Tolik, let’s throw all these superzoom sho from Nikon or Tamron to the dump.
Anatoly, I will give you advice, Arkady has a small nuance on the forum, everything that Yarkiy and Lynx will write to you must be taken for the truth, even if they call you Anatrolly you must believe it and agree, otherwise if you start to dust in the branch, then Arkady will ban you and not them, because they are trolls here for permanent residence, and you are so stray. There were a lot of similar truth-cutters in Radozhiv, but due to the tenacity of the three characters who constantly live here, they were banned, banned, and they will ban. And do not forget that Arkady collaborates with many flea markets of Soviet optics in Ukraine, so he praises it accordingly, and can even tell you where to buy some Helios that makes any Nikkor fix on all fronts.
1. The lynx has been banned for a long time, but according to the rules specified here https://radojuva.com.ua/about-radojuva/ apologized to Rei and received an amnesty :)
2. I do not cooperate with flea markets, I have nothing from this and write as it is. Those who provide equipment for review can post a link to themselves in the review header. Some simply use it to advertise their interests, but the flawed photo equipment does not change from this.
3. I can’t tell where I can buy something, and I’m ready to curse everyone, whoever calls me and tries to buy something from me. I repeat 1000 times, I do not sell photographic equipment. Very rarely I sell my personal photo equipment.
4. If any character violates https://radojuva.com.ua/about-radojuva/, he will be banned.
And on my own I’ll add, quit clever.
It is ugly to offend the owner in his own house as a guest! Would be ashamed.
I will also give advice, it is very convenient to shit in the comments under the cover of an anonymous person. It’s just a celebration of soul and heart, you shit on someone and no one will recognize you, but in the next branch you’re talking under your nickname.
So that this does not require registration, or at least control of name-addresses from the same IP. IMHO it is still relatively calm here (although worse than let's say a year ago), but anything can be in the future ...
Registration in Radozhiv in the near future will not be.
Yes, I learned this long ago, Arkady, there is no need to remind. :) Just expressed my thoughts out loud about the "content control" options.
Arkady, and what is the Tamron Adaptall-2 shank? Just an analog of a macro ring without lenses?
No, not macro rings. In this photo https://radojuva.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/sg/52b/tamron-sp-2-5-90-mm-tele-macro-bbar-mc-52b-n-ai-lens-review-10.jpg the entire rear of the lens is the Adaptall-2 interchangeable adapter
Yeah, that is, there are lenses in all versions. And in your opinion, such an implementation is worse than the classic, when the lens is designed for a specific system? After all, probably additional lenses in the circuit should degrade image quality?
Nі on the winter shanks there is a lot of lenses, stink tіlki vіdrіznyayutsya to the attached bayonet
I finally understood, thanks!
Virishiv sell ob'ktiv z review. To whom tsikavo - write: 0035@list.ru
Good day to all :) I shoot with Nikon-system, but I notice constant angry barking at the Nikon system behind Canon-system specialists ... “The opposite” happens only in isolated cases. Why is the Canonists so angry at Nikonists is unclear ?! Maybe the red ring on the lens is so annoying ?!
This is all subjectivity. And never write such thoughts that can only corrode a fire of hatred between some users of these two systems.
But what about this https://radojuva.com.ua/2015/02/comments-under-fire/
What about this?
The article itself with the caption “Confrontation of Nikon / Canon systems. Part 1." and there are “thoughts that can only corrupt the fire of hatred between some users of these two systems.” This conclusion is made from the comments of the participants, but you yourself have read them ……. Will there really be a second part?
The link indicated that this is IMHO, and with a bunch of reservations, and for some reason readers can’t understand that the topic there is exclusively discrete portraiturers, and not the entire system as a whole :)
The second part, of course, will be, but just, I repeat, the article will concern certain things, and not the system as a whole.
I just wanted to say, if there is the same name for the 2nd part, then, despite the "IMHO with a bunch of reservations", the mutual droppings will continue.
People are free to write whatever they want, the meaning of the article and some facts will not change from this, and in the article I do not have expressions like “Maybe the red ring on the lenses is so annoying ?!”. Think about it.
Wall.