Jim Brokaw wrote:
>Walt, didn't you just recently pick up a Tamron 300/2.8...? And I
>know somebody just got a Tamron 400/4.0 a little while ago -- was
>that you too? Cornering the market on fast Tamron glass? Let's
>see some shots.
>
>I watched a couple of those Tamron 80-200/2.8's, but I already have
>the Tokina 80-200/2.8... is the Tamron significantly different/better?
>I've only used the Tokina a little bit, but it seems to be as good
>as my Zuiko 200/4.0 at similar apertures.
Jim,
Guilty as charged as to the Tamron 300/2.8, but I believe Bill Barber just
yesterday confessed to having a 400/4. And I seem to recall a couple of
others here who've got one. As much as I might like to have a 400/4, it
just doesn't make sense when, with the Olympus 1.4X-A, I can turn the
300/2.8 into a very fine 420/4.
As for trying to corner the market -- well, more and more lens
manufacturers have stopped making lenses with the Oly mount, i.e., Sigma,
Vivitar, et al. So, I decided, before Tamron does likewise, to grab up
what I consider to be the cream of the Tamron Adaptall crop: 17/3.5 (the
new one, without the internal filters), 28-105/2.8, 90/2.8 1:1 macro,
80-200/2.8, and the 300/2.8. I'm leaving out the 400/4 only for the reason
I?ve already stated.
I won't be so bold as to say all Tamrons are as good as or better than all
Zuikos, but they certainly are the equal of many and better than some. As
for the Tokinas, I haven't a clue. My son of the Nikons has a few, and he
likes them. But the mere fact he has Nikons is prima facie evidence that
his opinion might well be all that good. On the downside, I will note,
however, that my McBroom's Camera Bluebook generally lists the manual focus
Tamrons at 40-50% more than the equivalent manual focus Tokinas.
Walt
< 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 >
|