Willie Wonka wrote:
>Bernard,
>This lens was on the cult list and is available in OM mount. Actually it is
>very common on "that" website.
>I don't have personal experience with any of the Tokina line, but did a
>research on them a couple of years ago and from the readings got the general
>impression that there is no difference in performance between the lenses in
>the ATX and SZX lines, you only loose speed with the latter.
>
I don't think it is entirely safe to generalize about any Tokina lines
except the RMC lenses before naming madness took over, and at least most
of the MF AT-X models. They have made so many different models and the
labeling is so inconsistent, that it's hard to know what is what. As a
simple example, I have an SZ-X352, 35-200/4-5.6, but I only know that
because I have the manual. Nowhere on the lens does it say SZ. Rather,
on the front ring is says SD and there is a thin red ring near the
front, both indicating the use of a "Super-low Dispersion" element. I
think the SD and red line are better indicators of quality in the lines
below AT-X than the model designations, maybe. Then here are the AT-X
Ff2.8 zooms, at least a couple of which have yellow-orange lines to
indicate F2.8, except the 80-200/f.28, which has the SD red line. Then
there are the AT-X 35-200 and 50-250, excellent lenses both, with no
lines, but with the little double red squiggle laft over from the RMC
lenses. It's all pretty confusing.
>Someone wants to confirm/dispute this statement? I have never posted this
>question to the list, but was always curious.
>
With two exceptions, I've stayed with the older RMC lenses or the newer,
but still old, MF AT-X lenses, and have never been disappointed with
them. With my one SZ, I'm not convinced it's as good as the slightly
faster bigger and heavier AT-X, but digital madness has kept me occupied
enough lately that I haven't really confirmed the sense I got from a few
shots.
>Bernard Frangoulis <lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Was the Tokina SZ-X 60-300mm f4/5.6 ever made in OM mount? And has
>anybody experience with this lens? Not many compact 300 mm solutions
>in OM mount ! (except 135/2.8 or 180/2.8 + 2xTC, if this is compact !)
>
300mm, speed and compactness don't really go together, as a matter of
physics. The 300/4.5 is realy pretty compact for what it is. Non of the
third party majors made a slower 300mm, all f2.8. The 135/2.8 and 2xA
combo is certainly not all tha big, 127mm long, 572g and rather slender,
but only 270mm fl. The 180/2.8 is a different matter, both larger and
heavier, but 260mm with 2xA.
Another 300m compact solution could be the 200/4 or 200/5 with a
1.4-1.5x teleconverter. The Zuiko isn't supposed to work with them, but
the Kiron, Soligor, etc would give 300/5.6 or f6. The 200/5 combo is a
full 300mm, 135mm long and 548g. I've never taken any pics with this
combo. maybe Jim Couch's promised tests with the 135/2.8 will add come
light.
I've never seen or heard anything about the SZ 60-300. I can heartily
recommend the Tamron SP 60-300/3.8-5.4 as a really first rate lens with
exceptional macro capability. As with other matching focal length
lenses, the Tamron is just a tiny bit faster and/or longer and
noticeably larger and heavier, in this case, 166mm long and 950g. That's
not exactly a fair comparison, though, as the SZ lenses were almost
always smaller and lighter than the AT-X lenses. I don't know if the
Tamrons are bigger and heavier due to the fact that they are adaptall
designs, but that certainly does make them more readily available for OM.
In any case, you can't go wrong on the basis of performance with the
Tamron 60-300.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|