My only experience with Tamron was a bad one, with a wide angle. It was a
long time ago and I'm sure their products are much improved. I have a
Tokina 300mm f/2.8 ATX, now discontinued, and am quite pleased with it.
As mentioned, if you stick with all Zuikos, the color balance among lenses
is remarkably consistent. I have tested my Tokinas (I also have the 80-200
f/2.8 ATX zoom) for this and I can not tell the difference. Maybe I just
have bad eyes. The 1.4x t/c works well with both of them.
The Oly 300 f/4.5 is *substantially* smaller and lighter. The 300mm ATX is
quite heavy and after a day's shooting your left arm is quite tired. The
cost factor is also a bunch. I bought my 300 new in 1991 for $1600 or
thereabouts. That is a lot more than the Zuiko. I've only seen one used
one available in the last few years and the seller was asking $1000 for it.
The Tamron is in the same league I believe.
John P
______________________________________
there is no "never" - just long periods of "not yet".
there is no "always" - just long periods of "so far"
james olson <james_olson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wondered:
>I have an interest in buying a telephoto in the next few years. (a 300
>or 400.) The reviews i have read of the 300/4.5 zuiko have been decent,
>but not great. Are there any list members that can compare the olympus
>telephotos with the Tamron 300/2.8 or the 400/4? The tamrons are a bit
>more expensive, but not nearly as much as a 350/2.8..........
>
>Are the results people get with the 300/4.5 zuiko, as well as the
>results using the 1.4 converter good enough to go for this lens?/?/?
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|