Moose opines:
>Some other real values: Tamron 35-105/2.8 asp. Excellent optical performance
>at the same size >and weight as the 35-80/2.8 for about 1/3 the cost.
I am a genuine and enthusiastic Tamron fan. Out of 31 lenses currently in my
cupboard that fit the OMs, only 9 are not Zuikos, and 6 of those are Tamrons.
Alas, none of them is the highly-touted 35-105/2.8 Tamron, so I, once again,
could be wrong. But the more I use it, the more I am convinced there is no
better zoom lens on this planet than the 35-80/2.8 Zuiko. I have praised the
28-105/2.8 Tamron, both for its optical performance and its range, and it is
the lens in my one camera/one lens kit. But except for the 50/2 Zuiko, it is
my honest opinion that the 35-80/2.8 Zuiko is a better lens than any of the
Zuiko (or Tamron) primes or zooms that fall within that range. Get one if you
can. If you can't, get a Tamron -- either one of them.
>But here I reveal my weakness, I just bought Tom's 90/2 even though I have a
>Tamron SP 90/2.5 >and Kiron 105/2.8. I've just gotta see how that legendary
>Zuiko might work for me. I know Walt >says it is a dead heat in all reaspect
>but wide open speed with the Tamron 90/2.8 and not as >sharp as the 100/2, but
>Gary's tests showed the 90 and 100 in a dead heat.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. I find myself, however, using the
Zuiko more, in spite of the fact the Tamron goes to 1:1 without accessories. I
think it's mostly because the Zuiko is heavy and substantial and solid and
feels like a REAL lens, while the Tamron is so light that it seems
insubstantial and even flimsy. But it's not.
Honestly, I can tell little or no difference in photographs taken with these
two lenses. Any distinction between the two is mostly subjective. I made a
series of test shots with the two on Provia 100F, but my E-6 processor sends
back plastic-mounted slides without numbers, and I spilled them all out (I'm
sometimes a little clumsy, even when sober), and then I couldn't tell which
shot was with which lens. Now, that's truly a blind test, and that was enough
for me to decide one lens wasn't better than the other. And that includes the
bokeh.
If I should decide to sell my Zuiko 90/2, forget I said that.
Oh, and as a last word, the 50/2 and 100/2 Zuikos are the best of the bunch --
at least of the bunch I've got.
Walt
> I'll second that. Before this turn of the thread, the question was just
> about Oly equipment, so I only mentioned the fact that there are some
> great values in other makers' OM lenses.
>
> The variously branded 19-35/3.5-4.5 is a very good lens
> <http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/%7Ebj/zuiko/9552405.htm>, and very
> reasonably priced new. It's always in my light kit for decent
> light/faster film situations unless I know I have a partucular use/FOV
> in mind for a prime. At the wide end, it's as fast as my 18 and 21mm
> primes, but falls down against the 24.2.8 and 28/2 for speed.
>
> Some other real values:
>
> Tamron 35-105/2.8 asp. Excellent optical performance at the same size
> and weight as the 35-80/2.8 for about 1/3 the cost.
>
> Tamron 60-300/3.8-5.6. Excellent optics and about the same speed at
> 200mm as the 65-200, as fast or faster than the 85-250 over its range,
> then it adds another 100mm of reach and amazing macro ability. Very
> compact and light for its range.
>
> Tokina 50-250/4-5.6. The special value here is the exceptional macro.
> It's also much less expensive than the Zuiko 50-250, but slower on the
> long end.
>
> There are several lenses in the 28/35-135/200 range with first rate
> optics and reasonable prices that cover a wide fl range that Oly never
> covered. The value is in price/performance and wide zoom range. One of
> my favorites is the Tokina AT-X 35-200/3.5-4.5. The Tamron SP equivalent
> is bigger and heavier, but otherwise fine. I'm trying out a Tokina SZ-X
> 35-200/3.5-4.5 because it does its 1:4 at the long end instead of the
> short end like so many zooms. Another excellent value if 200mm isn't
> neded is the Kiron 35-135/3.5-4.5. There are more, but that's enough for
> now.
>
> Another value area is in short tele macros, with the 90/2.5and 2.8
> macros from Tamron, Tokina and Vivitar and the excellent Kiron 105/2.8
> and bargain Vivitar 105/3.5.
>
> But here I reveal my weakness, I just bought Tom's 90/2 even though I
> have a Tamron SP 90/2.5 and Kiron 105/2.8. I've just gotta see how that
> legendary Zuiko might work for me. I know Walt says it is a dead heat in
> all reaspect but wide open speed with the Tamron 90/2.8 and not as sharp
> as the 100/2, but Gary's tests showed the 90 and 100 in a dead heat.
> Perjhaps they are close enough in performance that sample variatoin is
> the difference. In any case, I am particularly interested in the 90's
> macro performance and Oly claims "superb resolution at macro distances
> and excellent performance even with subjects at infinity". I'm assuming
> from the descriptioin in the eSIF that the 100 is optimized for 1:40
> with 'floating' correction to hold performance to 1:5 and the 90 is
> optomized for medium macro, with 'exclusive Olympus focus aberration
> correction mechanism guarantees first class picture sharpness all the
> way from minimum focus to infinity." I suspect thos extra couple of
> pieces of glass in the 90 are for flatness of field in macro.
>
> Guess I haven't stopped the insanity. :-)
>
> Moose
>
> GMcGrath@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >Ross,
> >The 19-35 zoom sold under several brand names (Vivitar, Phoenix, et al.) is
> >a
> >good budget option in this range. It's still widely available new. I have
> >always leaned toward zooms because of the framing flexibility and the fact
> >that
> >you can carry fewer lenses to cover various focal lengths.
> >HTH,
> >Greg
> >
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|