Yeah, looks like it to me, too. I've never had a 2.5, but looking at the
picture, its front end doesn't look any less fat-assed than the 2.8.
http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/data/a2-lens/72b.html
Makes me wonder if anybody has actually, for real, hands-on, in the real world,
attached an Olympus T8, T10 or T28 shoe directly onto one or if it's just
theory and supposition based on filter size.
Don't make me have to buy one to find out. I've got too many macro lenses
already, which may actually be proof that small things interest small minds.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Jeff Keller" <jrk_om@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I thought the older Tamron 90/2.5 would also have the fat-ass problem.
> http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/a2-lens/52b.htm
>
> -jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 6:52 AM
> Subject: [OM] Re: which marco flash?
>
>
> >
> > The 2.8 has 55mm filter threads, and, admittedly, attaching the macro
> flashes does require the use of a couple of empty 55mm filter rings to
> extend the threads so the flash can clear that unnecessarily fat-ass front
> end, but this workaround cost $2 and took 5 minutes to make. And besides,
> the two rings act as a mini lens hood when using the macro flashes, a bonus
> that may not be of much help, but it sure don't seem to hurt nothin'.
> >
> > Walt
> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > From: jking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > the older F2.5 tamron is faster, better built than the 2.8 and is only
> > > 49mm so no problem attaching a macro flash
> > >
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|