From: "LARS BUNDESEN" <lars.bundesen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Tamron 70-120 f/4-5.6 Adaptall - no points for quirkiness
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 23:00:06 +0200
Sorry Lex, you are wrong here. The points given were for optical
performance and did not include construction and so - points given for that
were different. Anyway, the Tokina was at the time the smallest 70-210
ever, so the Tamron did not score lower because it was lighter and smaller
than the Tokina.
Lars
----------
> Fra: Lex Jenkins <lexjenkins@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Til: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Emne: Re: [OM] Tamron 70-120 f/4-5.6 Adaptall - any info
> Dato: 14. august 2000 03:16
>
> Don't forget that German tests include a category for factors that don't
> quite translate into English but which are best summarized as
quirkiness.
> (Factors include "utilitarian design" as opposed to "ergonomic design,"
> translating into "how well the user adapts to the device.") A lens
rating
> low in quirkiness loses points. If the mini-Tamron was heavier, of a
> two-touch design, required a larger, clunkier adaptall mount, or could
be
> depended on to reliably destroy that delicate button on the OM-4 mount,
it
> would rank higher.
>
> Lex
> ===
>
> >From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: Re: [OM] Tamron 70-120 f/4-5.6 Adaptall - any info
> >Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 17:37:01 -0500
> >
> >Well, the consensus seems to be the little Tamron isn't much of a lens.
I
> >think it will be off to ebay with it. Too bad, I'd like for it to be a
> >better lens.
> >
> >Tom
> >
> > > I'd like to add some info on this:
> > >
> > > According to a German test, the Tokina SZ-X 4.0-5.6/70-210 mm lens
got
> >9.4
> > > points (="super") , while the Tamron 4-5.6/70-210 mm only got 7.2
> >points,
> > > which is not too impressive.
> > >
> > > Lars
>