Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Tamron 28-105/2.8 opinions?

Subject: [OM] Re: Tamron 28-105/2.8 opinions?
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:49:26 -0500
Walt and I have differing opines about the 28-105/2.8 Tamron . . . and I 
believe it's based on the different conditions under which we use lenses in 
this class.

If you're looking for a slightly smaller, somewhat lighter and less 
expensive one . . . can afford to give up a little at the short end . . . 
and can tolerate a "zoom creep" risk . . . its predecessor is the 
35-105/2.8 Adaptall-2 which has excellent optical performance 
reviews.  That it's an older model and less costly [used] is an added bonus 
. . . I have a pair of them and they have lived up to the reviews I found & 
read before buying them.

For relatively light travel I use three lenses:
   24/2 Zuiko
   35-105/3.5~4.5 Zuiko or 35-105/2.8 Tamron, and
   135/2.8 Zuiko or 85-200/2.8 Tamron

Whether it's the Tamrons or the Zuikos depends on how light . . . both in 
weight and in ambient . . . and how much I might need more focal length at 
the long end.  4X focal length range is very attractive (if one uses it) by 
eliminating the need for the 24mm I listed (one of the reasons Walt likes 
it ??).  Nik*n made fast lenses in this class . . . don't recall of Can*n 
did or not (with their FD system) . . . and do wish that Olympus had made 
one.  The 35-80/2.8 isn't quite long enough for me.  Olympus likely never 
made a zoom in this class faster than the 35-105/3.5~4.5 to keep size and 
weight down . . . which was a characteristic that differentiated Olympus 
from the others and therefore remained a very important design goal 
(sometimes at the expense of lens speed).  If you don't need the lens 
speed, the Zuiko is also optically excellent and contrasty . . . the latter 
a welcome surprise to me given the number of elements it has.

-- John Lind

At 06:05 PM 10/11/04, Walt Wayman wrote (in part):
>It's the lens in my one camera/one-lens outfit because of its speed and 
>range.  I've got lots of other possible choices, but I'm sticking with the 
>28-105/2.8 until somebody comes up with something smaller, faster and with 
>a wider range.  And cheaper, too.
>
>Walt
>
>--
>"Anything more than 500 yards from
>the car just isn't photogenic." --
>Edward Weston


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

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