on 10/22/02 12:26 PM, Walt Wayman at hiwayman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Yesterday I received the catch from my last fishing expedition in the Bay,
> a Tamron 80~200/2.8 in very good condition -- perfect glass. It's a bit
> dusty on the inside, but no more, I suppose, than should be expected for a
> zoom of this vintage. By the way, how much dust is too much dust?
>
> It came from a fellow Oly user in Far Rockaway, NY, who was not one of us.
> I invited him to join the List and gave him the address so that he might
> subscribe. I did not, however, tell him about our occasional hissy-fits,
> bouts of misbehavior and name-calling, like the PhotoShop imbroglio just
> past that bloodied a noggin or two. So, maybe y'all could try to tone it
> down and be civil for a bit, you know, and make nice, like for company?
>
> Oh, what the hell. Just be your usual cantankerous selves. He would find
> out sooner or later anyway that most of you are not as nice as I am.
>
> If you're here, Tony, you can introduce yourself, or not, as you please.
> We've got lots of lurkers who seldom speak, thereby avoiding making
> asses/arses of themselves as some do regularly -- this writer excepted, of
> course.
>
> Walt
Walt, didn't you just recently pick up a Tamron 300/2.8...? And I know
somebody just got a Tamron 400/4.0 a little while ago -- was that you too?
Cornering the market on fast Tamron glass? Let's see some shots.
I watched a couple of those Tamron 80-200/2.8's, but I already have the
Tokina 80-200/2.8... is the Tamron significantly different/better? I've only
used the Tokina a little bit, but it seems to be as good as my Zuiko 200/4.0
at similar apertures.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|