Walt Wayman wrote:
>I am a genuine and enthusiastic Tamron fan. Out of 31 lenses currently in my
>cupboard that fit the OMs, only 9 are not Zuikos, and 6 of those are Tamrons.
>Alas, none of them is the highly-touted 35-105/2.8 Tamron, so I, once again,
>could be wrong. But the more I use it, the more I am convinced there is no
>better zoom lens on this planet than the 35-80/2.8 Zuiko. I have praised the
>28-105/2.8 Tamron, both for its optical performance and its range, and it is
>the lens in my one camera/one lens kit. But except for the 50/2 Zuiko, it is
>my honest opinion that the 35-80/2.8 Zuiko is a better lens than any of the
>Zuiko (or Tamron) primes or zooms that fall within that range. Get one if you
>can. If you can't, get a Tamron -- either one of them.
I don't doubt that the 35-80 is a superb lens. I know the Tamron 35-105
also has a stellar reputation, but have never heard of anyone directly
doing a test comparison. My guess is that it would be a toss-up in
regular use, as all that special resolution is usually compromised in
day to day shooting. I do know the Tamron out performs the Zuiko at
105mm. :-) And the extra reach is important to me. I also have
heard/read those who have used both the 28-105 and 35-105 Tamrons say
the 35-105 is definitely optically superior. I think John Lind may be
one of them. I do know he bought one 35-105, sang its praises and then
bought another so he could have one on each body.
>>But here I reveal my weakness, I just bought Tom's 90/2 even though I have a
>>Tamron SP 90/2.5 >and Kiron 105/2.8. I've just gotta see how that legendary
>>Zuiko might work for me. I know Walt >says it is a dead heat in all reaspect
>>but wide open speed with the Tamron 90/2.8 and not as >sharp as the 100/2,
>>but Gary's tests showed the 90 and 100 in a dead heat.
>That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. I find myself, however, using the
>Zuiko more, in spite of the fact the Tamron goes to 1:1 without accessories.
>I think it's mostly because the Zuiko is heavy and substantial and solid and
>feels like a REAL lens, while the Tamron is so light that it seems
>insubstantial and even flimsy. But it's not.
>Honestly, I can tell little or no difference in photographs taken with these
>two lenses. Any distinction between the two is mostly subjective.
Well, my Tamron is the early, 49mm thread, 90/2.5, with sturdy metal
construction, that only goes to 1:2 directly. I have no idea which of
the 3 Tamrons is the best. I've heard varying opinions, but I'm not
going to worry about it.
> I made a series of test shots with the two on Provia 100F, but my E-6
> processor sends back plastic-mounted slides without numbers, and I spilled
> them all out (I'm sometimes a little clumsy, even when sober), and then I
> couldn't tell which shot was with which lens. Now, that's truly a blind
> test, and that was enough for me to decide one lens wasn't better than the
> other. And that includes the bokeh.
How nice for you that they are a toss-up in performance, since your
toss-up mixed them up. That way you didn't have to repeat the test.
>Oh, and as a last word, the 50/2 and 100/2 Zuikos are the best of the bunch --
>at least of the bunch I've got.
I wouldn't MIND a 100/2, but the right one hasn't shown up. I've never
had much interest in the 50/2. For copy work, the 50/3.5 is splendid and
the speed means nothing on the copy stand. For general photography, I
don't use a 50mm prime all that often and the latest version 50/1.4 is
excellent and adds a little speed.
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx