LOL :-) Glad to have provided the amusement.
I actually meant the Tokina AT-X 35-200/3.5-4.5, although the AT-X
60-120/2.8 is probably in this perturbation somewhere too ;-) .
Moose
Jeff Keller wrote:
I should have noted they rate the Zuiko 250 f2 at 2.6. I don't know of
any lenses that photodo has rated highly but are actually mediocre. It
might be best to consider a high photodo rating as sufficient to
establish the lenses quality but not strictly necessary for an excellent
lens. I wonder if anyone knows of any dogs photodo rates highly?
Thanks for the info on the 24-40.
Forgive the closing deviant thought --- Did you breed a Zuiko 65-200 f4
with your Tamron 80-200 f2.8 to get the Tokina AT-X 65-200 f2.8
favorite? ... The "runt of the litter" was probably a 65-80 f4 the size
of the Tamron. (I suppose it was really a brain hiccup while typing,
but interesting perturbation).
< 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 >
|