Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Re: Non-Olympus Tele-zooms

Subject: Re: [OM] Re: Non-Olympus Tele-zooms
From: "Lex Jenkins" <lexjenkins@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:26:20 PDT
Mike,

Good on ya for pointing out the Kiron. It's one of the unrecognized and wrongly shunned names for folks who worry about buying anything other than camera manufacturer-branded lenses, or those from Tamron, Tokina and other recognizable sources. In fact Kiron (as Kino Optical, if memory serves) made some of Vivitar's early Series 1 lenses before a rumored contract dispute (no offense Brian, and please correct me if this history is incorrect) caused them to introduce their own designs under the Kiron brand name.

And regarding your experience with your own zoom being sometimes less than satisfactory at maximum focal length, keep in mind a couple of factors.

Many zooms are strongly affected by flare at maximum focal length (and some at minimum focal length, for WA zooms). My Canon FD 100-300mm f/5.6 is one of these. I'd nearly given up on ever using it again at 300mm. Then I got back a series of pix I'd snapped of my mom fishing, taken at the 100, 200 and 300mm lengths, as I stepped back to achieve the same approximate framing. Each photo was equally crisp, well saturated and just plain great. Then I realized what the problem had been. Flare. But in this series the setting sun was behind me. No chance for flare and the pix were great. Evidently the lens hood I've been using isn't up to the task beyond the 200mm setting.

Also, my zoom has a very narrow sweet spot at 300mm. While it does well between f/8 and f/22 from 100-200mm, it's pretty much limited to f/16 at 300mm for ideal results.

Lex

----Original Message Follows----
From: miaim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Samu...I recently got a Kiron 80-200 F4.5 lens that is worthy as a possibility for your considerations...

At first I thought this lens wasn't sharp, and was kind of disappointed. But when I really analyzed the pics from the first roll through it, I realized that the ones that seemed a bit out were all at 200 setting...I've put a couple more rolls through it, paying more attention to tripod/support usage and guess what? The photos have improved with each roll so far. It's my personal theory that a lot of
the non-OeM lenses get a bad rap precisely because too many folks try to handhold them beyond their abilities.

Mike Swaim

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz