Actually, I was talking about the Sigma 28 f1.8 that was referenced in that
post.
The Tamron 90mm f/2.8 already has been pointed out to be inferior to the f/2.5.
My
experience has been more with the zuiko, and the AT-X, which in a similar
enlargement situation to yours, the difference was indiscernable.
Larry
John Hudson wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> >
> > Snickers are generated when the lens performance is not up to par. How is
> > that
> > lens in terms of sharpness, contrast, coating, etc.?
> >
> > Larry
>
> Over the last several months I have seen 35mm black and white and colour
> 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20 inch prints taken with a Tamron 90/2.8 [or 2.5?]
> zoom on a late model Nikon body. Compared to similar sized prints I shot
> using an 85/2 on my my OM4T and a 90/2.8 Elmarit on my M3 the Tamron
> prints were just plain awful ..........overly soft round the edges and
> just not at all sharp. The visual quality of my Olympus and Leica prints
> were too close in quality to discern one from the other. Based on this
> limited exposure to the Tamron zoom it got a big failing grade.
>
> John Hudson
> Vancouver, BC, Canada
>
> < 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 >
|