The 300/2.8 Tamron is a really very fine lens. I'm more than
happy with mine and encourage everyone who reads this to
immediately run out and get one. But despite having one, I have
also kept my 300/4.5 Zuiko, which ain't no slouch of a lens
itself. What it lacks compared to the Tamron, like being over a
stop slower and maybe a teensy bit less sharp and contrasty, it
more than makes up for by being less than half as big and weighing
about a third as much.
These things, to me, are relevant, and the further I have to tote
the gear, the more relevant they become. As GIs used to say about
the old M-1, it weighs 8.6 pounds, and after you carry it ten
miles, the decimal point drops out.
"A human being has a natural desire to have more of a good thing
than he needs." -- Mark Twain (defining the cause of Zuikoholism a
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 06:03:23 -0500
>Why would you relegate it to be a paperweight? Silvernose or not,
>early or not, it is still an outstanding lens! Shoot with it!
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus