Walt Wayman wrote:
>But the 28-105/2.8 Tamron is not, I submit, a piece of crap, either.
Heck, I can do you one better. I sometimes go out with just a Tamron
28-200/3.8-5.6 asp on an OM, clearly further down on the optical
performance totem pole than the 28-105/2.8. It does win the do the most
in the smallest, lightest package award, though. And amazingly enough,
it takes some pretty fine images. My TOPE 17 entry
<http://www.tope.nl/tope_show_entry.php?event=17&pic=34> (same TOPE you
cite.) is of about 16% of a 35mm neg taken hand held at 200mm with this
lens, so it ain't a piece of crap lens, either.
Of course the 28-105 is a good lens.
>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:
And that wonderful shot is about 98% photographer and 2% lens!
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx