Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] ON TOPIC Tamron Info, not SUV (much)

Subject: Re: [OM] ON TOPIC Tamron Info, not SUV (much)
From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 09:27:07 -0500
I would?ve posted this valuable information earlier, but with all
the off-topic SUV talk crowding out relevant subjects, I waited
until it abated a bit.  People who start that kind of stuff ought
to be ashamed, but most likely aren?t.  (Evil smirk of the Calvin
sort.)

Anyway, Tamron talk:  The proper Adaptall 2 mounts are available
new from B&H for $32.95.  I right now have one stored in my cart,
pending my next order.  I have five Tamrons (more about which
later), and I want to have an extra mount in the event of (a)
failure of one, or (b) coming across the 400/4 at a reasonable
price.  With OMs extinct in the wild, these may not be available
forever.

As for Tamron Adaptall lenses, I have these and entertain these
opinions of them:

17/3.5.  This is the newer version, the one without the built-in
filters.  Surprisingly good corner-to-corner.  Minimal distortion
and pretty good sharpness and color.  A real bargain, except it
takes 82mm filters, and only in the hood.  (No, that doesn?t mean
you can?t use it if you?ve away from your home territory.  It
means the filters fit in the clamp-on lens hood.  The lens itself
has no filter threads.)

28-105/2.8.  Great lens, but big and fairly heavy.  It was
designed as an autofocus lens, so the focusing ring moves with
very little resistance, giving not much feedback, and rotates
through only about a 60 degree arc, making for quite quick
focusing.  Some folks don?t like that.  It takes some getting used
to, but it?s not a major problem for me.  Also takes 82mm filters.

90/2.8 1:1 macro.  This is the present version.  It, as the name
implies, goes to 1:1 without any extras.  Maybe not the equal of
the 90/2 Zuiko, but I doubt you could tell the difference in the
results.  If you want to use any of the Olympus ring flashes or
the T-28 shoe ring, you?ll have to fashion an adapter.  A pair of
55mm filter rings will do the trick.  I just got a couple of junk
filters from the bargain bin and removed the glass, then screwed
them together.

80-200/2.8.  If I didn?t have this lens, I would be beating the
bushes to get one.  It is simply outstanding.  Big and heavy, yes,
but its performance makes it worth every inch and ounce.  Mine had
a bit of dust and a slight amount of zoom creep when I got it, but
the glass was perfect.  A $100 trip to KEH, and now no dust and no
creep.  The tripod mount is a bit strange, but it does the job.
Takes 77mm filters.

300/2.8.  This lens is absolutely fantastic.  I don?t believe I?ve
ever bought a piece of photographic equipment I was happier with.
I don?t think I can say more without choking up.  :-)  Takes 112mm
filters up front, but 43mm filters in the rear.  I?ve even adapted
a couple of B+W filters to fit the rear filter slot.

Now, about the mileage I get in the 4Runner, are we talking city,
highway or off road?  If off road, high or low range?  If highway,
interstate or two-lane?  Laden or unladen?  Windows up or down?
Moon roof open or shut?  I need more information before I can
properly reply.

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 >


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