Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Possible sacrilege and blasphemy

Subject: Re: [OM] Possible sacrilege and blasphemy
From: Walt Wayman <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 14:56:04 -0500
A few weeks ago I fished out of the Bay a Tamron 80-200/2.8.  It looked
great, although there was a fair amount of internal dust and a bit of zoom
creep.  Neither creep nor dust alone was serious enough to require remedial
measures.  The creep occurred only when the lens was pointed straight up or
straight down, and since I seldom photograph my feet and haven?t seen a UFO
in broad daylight for several months now, this was not a big deal.  And the
dust, I am sure, bothered me much more by its mere presence than any actual
effect on image quality would concern a rational person.

But, since I could get both taken care of by KEH for $100, I sent the lens
across the river.  Today, it returned, minus the crap and the creep.

Out of curiosity, I took at look at Gary Reese?s lens tests to see how this
particular Tamron stacks up against our Zuikos.  Gary?s tests were done
only at three focal lengths, but assuming the performance is reasonably
uniform across the entire zoom range, generally speaking, not putting too
fine a point on it, without the use of 8x10 glossy photographs with lines
and arrows and writing on the back, this lens actually seems to outperform
some Zuiko primes that fall within its range (85/2, 85/2.8, 100/2.8,
135/2.8, 135/3.5, 180/2.8, 200/4, 200/5) and is at least the equal of some
others (90/2 Macro, 135/4.5 Macro, although without the macro capability)
and is bested only marginally by the 100/2 and 180/2.  Strangely, the Zuiko
zooms seem to have fared better, comparatively speaking.

Verrrry interesting.  Yes, compared to the typical Zuiko, it?s big and
heavy (7.25 in. and 3 lbs. 3 oz., with hood and tripod collar, as compared,
say, with the Zuiko 35-80/2.8 at 4.5 in. and 1 lb. 8 oz. with hood and no
tripod collar).  But I think it?s found a home.  Besides, it takes up in
excellent fashion just where the aforementioned Zuiko 35-80/2.8 leaves off!

Am I missing something?  I almost wish it weren't so!  I've got four of
those Zuikos I've compared it to.

Walt

< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz