Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Possible sacrilege and blasphemy

Subject: Re: [OM] Possible sacrilege and blasphemy
From: dreammoose <dreammoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 00:04:38 -0800
Welcome to the club. It is just as you say, the Tamron SP 80-200/2.8 is an amazing performing lens, and the price (other than $ :-) ) is size and weight. I also have 4 of the Zuikos primes in its range. They are all certainly easier to handle and hand hold individually than the Tamron. I don't think it's practical to use it without at least a monopod.

It's companion, the 35-105/2.8 seems just as good to me, but that's even greater blasphemy. At least the 80-200/2.8 doesn't compete directly with any Zuiko zooms. The other sleeper is the 60-300 (with lots o' light and/or fast film) with that extra reach and super macro to 1:1.55.

Moose

Walt Wayman wrote:

A few weeks ago I fished out of the Bay a Tamron 80-200/2.8.  <snip>

Out of curiosity, I took at look at Gary Reese's lens tests to see how this
particular Tamron stacks up against our Zuikos.  Gary's tests were done
only at three focal lengths, but assuming the performance is reasonably
uniform across the entire zoom range, generally speaking, not putting too
fine a point on it, without the use of 8x10 glossy photographs with lines
and arrows and writing on the back, this lens actually seems to outperform
some Zuiko primes that fall within its range (85/2, 85/2.8, 100/2.8,
135/2.8, 135/3.5, 180/2.8, 200/4, 200/5) and is at least the equal of some
others (90/2 Macro, 135/4.5 Macro, although without the macro capability)
and is bested only marginally by the 100/2 and 180/2.  Strangely, the Zuiko
zooms seem to have fared better, comparatively speaking.

Verrrry interesting.  Yes, compared to the typical Zuiko, it's big and
heavy (7.25 in. and 3 lbs. 3 oz., with hood and tripod collar, as compared,
say, with the Zuiko 35-80/2.8 at 4.5 in. and 1 lb. 8 oz. with hood and no
tripod collar).  But I think it's found a home.  Besides, it takes up in
excellent fashion just where the aforementioned Zuiko 35-80/2.8 leaves off!

Am I missing something?  I almost wish it weren't so!  I've got four of
those Zuikos I've compared it to.



< 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