Mike,
I like your suggestion to use the 80-200/2.8. If you put on the 1.4x, you get a
132-280/4. And the quality of the main lens is to-die-for (certainly not up to
the white glass, but nothing to sneer at).
Skip
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Please reply to [skipwilliams at pobox.com]
Direct responses to the email address on the header may get lost
----------------------------------------------------------------->
>Subject: Re: [OM] Tamron lenses
> From: Mike Veglia <msvphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:44:02 -0800
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>In a message dated 1/13/2003 Sean Davis writes:
>
><< So far i'm leaning toward the 60-300 - I'm looking for any experiences
>with the 70-350 specifically. I was browsing the archives and found
>that Mike Veglia had one at one time - if you read this Mike, how has
>your lens performed? >>
>
>Actually, I have had both. The SP 60-300 was my "do all" lens for close to a
>decade. Almost all my work from 1999 and before was shot with that lens. It
>isn't in the same class as "the big white one" but when I look back at my
>older work I am always reminded just how good it was.
>
>The 70-350 I owned was a real beater and in very ugly condition, but the
>glass was still nice and clear. I got it for a bargain price and sold it
>after getting the 350/2.8. That is one lens I really regret letting go of in
>hindsight. Not only did I not give it enough of a chance in the brief time I
>had it (and realized after selling it just how good it was), but it also was
>such a beater it would have made the perfect bad weather lens when
>conditions are so ugly I cringe at the thought of so much as opening my
>mini-trekker. I have a OM-2S beater body for such occasions.
>
>The comparison is apples to oranges really. The 60-300 is a good all around
>lens that, for me anyway, is compact and easily hand held. The 70-350 on the
>other hand is a beast, but one capable of some really amazing results and
>has decent speed. At the long end I think the 70-350 is superior to the
>60-300.
>
>All that said, macro aside, I think the SP 80-200/2.8 LD with appropriate
>converters is really the way to go in Tamron SP zooms. If I still had the
>60-300 I would likely never use it (which I guess is why I don't have it
>anymore even though it served me well for so long).
>
>Mike Veglia
>Motor Sport Visions Photography
>http://www.motorsportvisions.com
>
>
>
>< 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 >
|