I don't doubt the size and weight of that monster, Walt - bigger even than
its 35-105 brother which I used on that Zuikoholic outing. I was mentally
comparing it the the Tamron 35-80 (grnated only 2.8-3.8). That is a tiddler
by comparison.
--
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Walt Wayman
Sent: 26 May 2005 19:21
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Speaking of the 35-80/2.8 Zuiko....
Piers,
If you were surprised by the size of the Zuiko, you would be astounded at
the bulk of my "preferred" walkabout lens, a 28-105/2.8 Tamron, which is
more than twice the size and weight of the Zuiko. But it has the advantage
of that extra stretch on both ends. Some folks really, really say bad
things about it, and I admit it's maybe marginally inferior to the Zuiko
between 35mm and 80mm, but from 28mm to 35mm and from 80mm to 105mm, it
kicks the Zuiko's ass/arse. Since I never use either on a tripod, I'd guess
that, handheld, there's not a whole lot to distinguish one from the other.
But I do really appreciate the quality of the 35-80/2.8 Zuiko. My serious
"grab-and-go" kit includes a 19-35/3.5~4.5 Phoenix, 35-80/2.8 Zuiko, and
80-200/2.8 Tamron, while the 28-105/2.8 Tamron on an OM-4Ti/MD2 is my
one-lens, what-the-hell outfit. On "found" TOPE shots, it leads the Zuiko
2-0. I'll try to use the Zuiko for the next one. :-)
http://www.tope.nl/tope_show_entry.php?event=17&pic=4
http://www.tope.nl/tope_show_entry.php?event=20&pic=11
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Piers Hemy" <piers@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Moose, any thoughts yet on the Tamron? I agree with Scott, but have
> no basis for comparison (except that both Graham and Marting were
> sporting the Zuiko last weekend - it was bigger than I had expected).
>
> --
> Piers
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of ScottGee1
> Sent: 26 May 2005 16:38
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] Re: Speaking of the 35-80/2.8 Zuiko....
>
>
> Taking advantage of this opportunity . . .
>
> Anyone compared the OM 35~80 to the Tamron 35~80 SP? The latter has
> been one of my favo(u)rites for years and I'm wondering how much
> 'better' the OM could be.
>
> TIA!/ScottGee1
>
>
> On 5/26/05, Walt Wayman <hiwayman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Mentioning what I wouldn't sell mine for got me to thinking. I
> > don't read
> the digital stuff all that thoroughly, so I may have missed a tidbit
> or two here and there, but I don't recall any of you pixelheads
> talking about using the analog Zuiko zooms on either an E-Thing or
> even an off-brand DSLR, like a C-Thing. I would've thought the
> 35-80/2.8 Zuiko would be a natural, considering its reputation for
quality.
> >
> > Exactly why is that? Don't any of y'all have one? If someone would
> > like to donate an E-Thing for a few months, I could check it out.
> > :-)
> >
> > Walt
> >
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|