Larry:
You corrected your first mistake. You also corrected mine - F/2 is only
about 2/3 of a stop faster than F/2.5. Still, that extra speed can be
important.
As hopefully you'll agree by looking at the following data taken from Gary
Reese's lens tests, the Zuiko outperforms the Tamron at every aperture, the
Vivitar at almost all apertures and rather significantly outperforms the
Tokina at all but F/16 and F/22. (BTW, the Zuiko performed much better than
this when used with mirror prefire.)
The Tokina at $150 is a get-what-you-pay-for example. I'd rather have the
best if possible.
Winsor:
The 80/4 is a great macro lens. But if you want to use it in the field, be
prepared to carry a 65-116 tube or a bellows as it is useless without them.
Aperture Center Corner
Zuiko:
f/2 C B-
f/2.8 B- B-
f/4 B+ B
f/5.6 A- B
f/8 A A-
f/11 A A-
f/16 A- B+
f/22 B B-
Tamron:
f/2.5 C- C
f/4 B- B
f/5.6 B B
f/8 B+ B+
f/11 A- A-
f/16 A- B+
f/22 B B
f/32 B- B-
Vivitar Series 1
f/2.5 B- C
f/4 B B+
f/5.6 B+ A-
f/8 A- A-
f/11 B+ B
f/16 B B
f/22 B B
Tokina AT-X:
f/2.5 B- C
f/4 B C+
f/5.6 C B-
f/8 C+ B-
f/11 B B-
f/16 B+ B+
f/22 B+ B+
f/32 B- B
George
>
> Actually, he said he has a 100mm f/2.8 not an f/2, and the 90
> f2.5 Ttamron is
> definately not out performed by the Zuiko - it is comparable.
> Also, it is not a
> full stop slower. The Tokina ATX 90mm F2.5 actually outperforms the Zuiko
> according to various published tests. (confirmed to me in my own
> comparisons).
> It comes with its own optical matched multiplier, and at $150
> it's simply a
> better package.
>
> Larry
>
> >
> > > (the 100/2 is a much sought after lens and should bring a good
> > price).
> > > Then take the $$$s and buy a Zuiko 90/2 macro. It
> outperforms the Tamron
> > > and is a stop faster.
> > >
> > > George
> > >
> > > > I currently own the Olympus 100/2.8, but I've been looking
> at the Tamron
> > > > 90/2.5 for standard shooting and macro work. It seems like
> a good way
> > to
> > > > have two lenses in one. Does anyone on the list have actual
> > > > experience with
> > > > the lens as a standard lens? I would imagine it would be quite
> > > > similar to
> > > > the Olympus 100/2.8 in performance, but I have no way to measure.
> > > >
> > > > I'm quite interested in acquiring one, but maybe it's
> redundant with a
> > > > 100/2.8? (And I have the 50/3.5 Olympus Macro.)
> > > > James.
> >
> > < 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|