Snickers are generated when the lens performance is not up to par. How is that
lens in terms of sharpness, contrast, coating, etc.?
Larry
Dirk Wright wrote:
> Chip Stratton wrote:
>
> > But, to get it to a good price point, they do compromise a bit on
> > construction compared to the Zuiko or Leica - on my example the focusing
> > helicoid had a tiny bit of slop, and of course the lens body is of
> > polycarbonate and not metal (though I understand an earlier Tamron did have
> > a metal body).
>
> I'm not convinced that polycarbonate is less desireable in a lens body
> than aluminum. I'm fairly certain that it changes dimension less with
> temperature than aluminum, for example. It may also have better
> dampening than metal, which means that it would absorb vibration better
> than metal. It certainly has greater resilience than aluminum. It is
> definitely lighter of course.
>
> I maintain that a well engineered lens body made from polycarbonate is
> good thing. I have a new Sigma 28/1.8 that has a poly body. While Sigma
> generates snickers among many people, the lens appears to me to be well
> made.
>
> As usual, it's the proper use of the materials that matters, not the
> material itself.
>
> --
> "I have a dragon and I'm not afraid to use it!"
>
> Dirk Wright
>
> < 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 >
< 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 >
|