Thank you for this summing up.
Hope some benefit to others.
Christian
Le Dimanche 26 Septembre 2004 17:34, vous avez écrit :
> Now that the subject of the quality of Tamron lenses has been raised, and
> now that I'm warmed up, allow me one more bit of input. I have a few
> Tamrons, and for the benefit of the curious, I'm going to rate them on the
> good ol' 1-10 scale.
>
> For purposes of calibration, let me say that of the 24 Zuikos I own, there
> are only three that, all things considered, within the realm of reasonable
> expectations in the ordinary course of photographic endeavors, I would rate
> a 10. Those three are the 21/2, 50/2, and 100/2. Keep that in mind.
>
> Now for the Tamrons and my opinions:
>
> 17/3.5 (newer version without internal filters) = 8
> 24/2.5 = 8
> 28-105/2.8 = 7
> 80-200/2.8 = 9
> 90/2.8 1:1 macro = 9
> 300/2.8 = 10
>
> Walt, who's never contributed to any "no opinion" survey results
>
> --
> "Anything more than 500 yards from
> the car just isn't photogenic." --
> Edward Weston
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|