Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8.

Subject: [OM] Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8.
From: "daniel" <danrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:30:22 -1000
Moose, this is the info I needed to save time in searching for reviews!
I have one I'm looking at for 299.
I'd like to do some research on the Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8.
Thanks 
Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Moose
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:14 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Tamron 90/2.5

For a test of the Tamron SP 80-200/2.8, look at Gary's test site 
<http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm> and compare it 
to the better fixed focal length lenses in the lengths at which it was 
tested. It is likely the best lens in that focal range ever made and 
better than many fixed fl lenses in its range. It is very solidly made, 
including the metal bayonet hood. The price for all this and the 
constant f2.8 aperture is size and weight.

So it's a killer lens, what are the downsides? With adaptall mount and 
hood, it weighs 1,510 g (3 lb 5 oz.), has a minimum length of 179 mm (7 
in.) and diameter of 82 mm (3.23 in.). It is hand holdable to some, but 
not by me for any length of time. I'm not really comfortable without at 
least a monopod. Close focus is limited, at 1.8 m (6 ft.). The tripod 
mount is fine if you treat it well. It has some slight flex in its 
structure, which can easily lead one to overtighten teh mounting bolt 
and some people have actually broken them this way. Both tripod mount 
and hood are NLA and hard to find, so I wouldn't buy one without them. 
It is possible, according to a listee, to adapt the Oly tripod mount 
from the 300/4.5 to fit it fairly easily.

A less common alternative is the Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8. Optically just 
a small notch below the Tamron in Gary's tests, it is just a hair 
smaller but a whopping 23 0ghter. It has a far better and less 
obtrusive tripod mount. Build quaity of the lens is excellent. It's hood

is plastic and flimsier than the Tamron, but a lot lighter.

Moose

daniel wrote:

>Anyone know how the 80-200 2.8 tamron is?
>Dan
>  
>



< 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 >


< 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