I should have noted they rate the Zuiko 250 f2 at 2.6. I don't know of
any lenses that photodo has rated highly but are actually mediocre. It
might be best to consider a high photodo rating as sufficient to
establish the lenses quality but not strictly necessary for an excellent
lens. I wonder if anyone knows of any dogs photodo rates highly?
Thanks for the info on the 24-40.
Forgive the closing deviant thought --- Did you breed a Zuiko 65-200 f4
with your Tamron 80-200 f2.8 to get the Tokina AT-X 65-200 f2.8
favorite? ... The "runt of the litter" was probably a 65-80 f4 the size
of the Tamron. (I suppose it was really a brain hiccup while typing,
but interesting perturbation).
-jeff
----- Moose replied -----
> I guess that's one of the problems with their use of MTF bench tests
> alone. If you check out Gary Reese's tests, the Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8
> shows very well. The AT-X 65-200 is one of my favorite lenses.
>
> I've just received the first shots with my 24-40/2.8 back from
> processing/scanning. They look quite good on the 2000dpi mass scans.
> There is some barrel distortion at 24mm in one shot with a straight
line
> along the bottom part of a frame. The clip-on lens shades for the
24-40
> are rare used and expensive new (~$50 with shipping and tax for me in
> CA.). I found a screw-in that seems to work, but I haven't tested it
yet.
>
> Moose
>
> Jeff Keller wrote:
>
> >photodo.com doesn't rate either of these two lenses but a number of
the
> >AT-X lenses don't show up as great performers. Even the 80-200 f2.8
> >received a 2.9 rating. The Tamron 35-105 SP received a 3.6
> >-jeff
> >
< 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 >
|