Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] RE: olympus-digest V2 #3869

Subject: [OM] RE: olympus-digest V2 #3869
From: "danrich" <danrich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:04:22 -1000
Where can I get a 112mm protective filter, anyone have one for sale?
Dan

Date: Fri,  7 Feb 2003 09:27:07 -0500
From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] ON TOPIC Tamron Info, not SUV (much)

I would=92ve 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=92t.  (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=92t mean 
you can=92t use it if you=92ve 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=92t like that.  It takes some getting used 
to, but it=92s 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=92ll 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=92t 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=92t believe I=92ve 
ever bought a piece of photographic equipment I was happier with.  
I don=92t think I can say more without choking up.  :-)  Takes 112mm 
filters up front, but 43mm filters in the rear.  I=92ve 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


 


 
                   

------------------------------

End of olympus-digest V2 #3869
******************************


< 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