[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Stop the insanity! (If you feel like it)

Subject: [OM] Re: Stop the insanity! (If you feel like it)
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 14:24:13 -0700
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

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