The 180/2.5 Tamron comes with the advantage of having two top-quality, matched,
reasonably-priced converters available. They fit between the adaptall mount
and the lens, so they're a pain to mount quickly. My advice is to buy an extra
Adaptall mount and keep it glued to the converter(s) if you buy one. I found
one of the great 1.4x converters for $60 on Ebay, new in the box.
Oh, and the Tamron produces sharper, more CA-free photos IME, and for a lower
price. The Zuiko 180/2.8 is still a very nice piece of glass....I just wish
that they had put an ED element in it to correct the CA.
I had 2x converters for years and years from Olympus, Vivitar, and Komura, and
never really liked them, mostly due to the dim finders and the two stops of
light loss. OTOH, I really liked my 1.4x's, both Zuiko and Tamron SP, which
extended the reach of my longer lenses, only cost me one stop, and generally
were of higher quality than the 2x's.
Skip
----- Original Message ---------------
Subject: [OM] Re: New member with question about 100/F2
From: Martin Walters <mwalters@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:59:06 -0500
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>Walt:
>Obviously I am not as completely addicted as others. I realize that
>using converters is a practical, if imperfect, solution. Though I have
>gone the primes route (essentially for speed as the eyes age and I
>oftern travel without flash), I like to carry things other than lenses
>(food, water, you know). I don't expect to need the reach beyond
>180-200mm often enough to justify something bigger and heavier. Thus, a
>converter is an attractive option, depending on the extent of lens
>degredation.
>
>The 180mm 2.8 zuiko gets mixed reviews - some are very happy, others
>not. The Tamron 180 usually crops up as the "preferred alternative".
>While rare, it seems somewhat cheaper than the Zuiko as well (US$400-ish
>as opposed to $600-ish based on recent KEH prices).
>
>Martin
>
>
>Walt Wayman wrote:
>
>>Martin,
>>
>>The 100/2 Zuiko is one of my all-time favorite lenses, but I have never tried
>>it with either of the Olympus teleconvertrs. Increased focal length is
>>gained with converters, but there's always a loss, however small, in
>>resolution and contrast. Instead of the 100/2 with the 1.4X-A, I would use
>>instead the 135/2.8 Zuiko. And rather than the 100/2 and the 2X-A, I'd go
>>for the 180/2.8 Zuiko, which wouldn't have quite the reach, but it would be a
>>stop faster and certainly sharper.
>>
>>And, by the way, what's your problem with the 180/2.8? I use mine a lot.
>>It's my fourth favorite prime, right behind the 100/2, 50/2 and 21/2. It's a
>>real pleasure to use, which causes me to reach for it many times before
>>breaking out the twice-as-heavy and way more awkward to hold Tamron
>>80-200/2.8.
>>
>>Oh, and welcome to the asylum escapee group.
>>
>>Walt
>>
>>--
>>"Anything more than 500 yards from
>>the car just isn't photogenic." --
>>Edward Weston
>>
>> -------------- Original message ----------------------
>>From: Martin Walters <mwalters@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>>I will finish with a question about the 100/2. I am still getting used
>>>to this lens and focussing is a little tricky at large apertures (I
>>>haven't shot with anything over 50mm for quite a while). The DOF is
>>>quite small compared with the WAs that I'm used to. I have briefly tried
>>>the lens with a lowly and old Tamron X2 converter, but the results have
>>>been so-so. Does this lens work well with converters, and if so which?
>>>Comments welcome.
>>>
>>>Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>==============================================
>>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>==============================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|