Skip Williams wrote:
>Michael,
>
>The Tamron and Tokina 80-200/2.8's are the best mid-to-long zooms ever made
>for the OM System.
>
Yup!
>They're very similar in overall build, quality, and weight.
>
Yup, Yup, Nope. Tamron weighs 30% more than Tokina. Real world weight of
lenses with tripod mount, hood, adaptall on my digital scale. 1510 gr
vs. 1160 gr. Quite noticeable when carrying.
>But the Tokina's are much, much harder to find and more expensive.
>
Yup, not necessarily. My Tokina, in ex+ with hood and tripod mount was
$165 off the 'Bay. The Tamron was well over twice as much. Of course, I
may have overpaid for one and under for the other.
>The superb Adaptall mount made the great Tamron SP line available to many
>manual focus bodies, including the OM's.
>
>
Oh, yeah! A wonderful design concept and some great lenses. Whether it
was just the adaptall mount or other things as well, the Tamron SPs did
tend to be heavier than the equivalent Tokinas AT-X designs.
>Unless your backpacking such a lens, I'd highly recommend the Tamron. I had
>one for about 15 years, bought new back in the very late 80's. With it's
>superb resolution and brightness, I sold all the large, long Zuikos that I had
>in the range, which included the 200/4 and 180/2.8. It's much better than
>either of those two lenses.
>
>The only Zuiko that I'd carry instead would be the 50-200, which is pricy now,
>and much slower.
>
>
Tamron to the rescue again, with the excellent 60-300/3.8-4.5, faster
than the Zuiko at all equivalent fls, and Tokina with the 50-250/4-5.6,
again, as fast or faster. And both of these have amazing macro
capabilities. The Tamron to 1:1.55, closer than the Zuiko macros, and
the Tokina to an even closer 1:1.4.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|