Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Stop the insanity! (If you feel like it)

Subject: [OM] Re: Stop the insanity! (If you feel like it)
From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 21:44:57 +0000
The Moose opines again:

>I also have heard/read those who have used both the 28-105 and 35-105 Tamrons 
>say 
>the 35-105 is definitely optically superior. I think John Lind may be 
>one of them. I do know he bought one 35-105, sang its praises and then 
>bought another so he could have one on each body.

I won't argue with that.  Even without ever having held one in my greedy little 
hands, I acknowledge and accept the opinions of those who know a whole lot more 
than I ever will -- and John Lind is certainly one of those (and so is Moose, I 
suspect).  And there are many others whose opinions of the two lenses I have 
seen and respect.

But the 28-105/2.8 Tamron is not, I submit, a piece of crap, either.  As I 
said, it is my choice for the one camera/one lens outfit because of its speed 
and range, the combination of which no other OM-fit lens that I know of can 
match.  And except for the 35-80/2.8 and 35-105/3.5~4.5 Zuiko, I'll put it up 
against any of the other Zuiko zooms.

Besides, it got me this:

 http://www.tope.nl/tope_show_entry.php?event=17&pic=4



> Walt Wayman wrote:
> 
> >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.
> >
> I don't doubt that the 35-80 is a superb lens. I know the Tamron 35-105 
> also has a stellar reputation, but have never heard of anyone directly 
> doing a test comparison. My guess is that it would be a toss-up in 
> regular use, as all that special resolution is usually compromised in 
> day to day shooting. I do know the Tamron out performs the Zuiko at 
> 105mm. :-)      And the extra reach is important to me. I also have 
> heard/read those who have used both the 28-105 and 35-105 Tamrons say 
> the 35-105 is definitely optically superior. I think John Lind may be 
> one of them. I do know he bought one 35-105, sang its praises and then 
> bought another so he could have one on each body.
> 
> >>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.
> >
> Well, my Tamron is the early, 49mm thread, 90/2.5, with sturdy metal 
> construction, that only goes to 1:2 directly. I have no idea which of 
> the 3 Tamrons is the best. I've heard varying opinions, but I'm not 
> going to worry about it.
> 
> >  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.
> >
> How nice for you that they are a toss-up in performance, since your 
> toss-up mixed them up. That way you didn't have to repeat the test.
> 
> >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.
> >
> I wouldn't MIND a 100/2, but the right one hasn't shown up. I've never 
> had much interest in the 50/2. For copy work, the 50/3.5 is splendid and 
> the speed means nothing on the copy stand. For general photography, I 
> don't use a 50mm prime all that often and the latest version 50/1.4 is 
> excellent and adds a little speed.
> 
> Moose
> 
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz