Piers Hemy wrote:
>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).
>
>
Well, I really didn't consider it in relation to the Zuiko 35-80 when I
bought it. For one thing, I've never been interested in the Zuiko. I
have the Tamron 35-105/2.8 Asph and I like reach, so I can't see the
point in paying a lot more for something the same size, weight and
speed, but 80 vs. 105mm at the long end and with even worse close focus.
I've never seen a real head to head test, but I don't believe the Zuiko
is better, it is clearly a seriously great lens, but so is the Tamron.
If the Tamron f2.8 focused to say 1:3, I could just relax and leave it
on the prime body all the time. But it doesn't and close focus is really
important to me. I even find the 35-105/3.5-4.5 frustrating. Such a nice
lens, but that close focus... That it only focuses to 1:5 is a problem.
That it does so at 35mm, with the perspective and stand off distance
consequences, drives me a little wild sometimes,
So I bought the Tamron 35-80 as an alternative to try to the
35-105/3.5-4.5. In return for the loss of some long end, I get extra
speed in a slightly smaller and lighter lens AND, focus to 1:2.5 at
80mm, twice the magnification and at the right end of the fl range.
Results aren't all in yet, but I do like the Tamron a lot. For my last
serious photographic foray, focal range won out over size and weight,
Kiron 28-210mm and Viv S1 19-35. The short range zooms stayed home. I
was sure I would need at least 200mm and also WA and I was right. Could
have used more long end, maybe the 50-250 or 60-300, but my choices were
about right overall.
As an alternative to the 35-80/2.8 on a specs basis, it offers a much
smaller, lighter package with MUCH better close focus at the cost of
almost a stop of speed at the long end. Considering the price
difference, it's a no brainer on specs. But then there is the
performance issue, and there I can't be much help. If Walt wants to send
me his 35-80/2.8, I'll be happy to give it the DSLR test, as well as
testing it against the Tamron. Absent that, I am in the position of
having heard owners of the Zuiko talk about a special quality, sort of
like the Leica "glow", that goes beyond tests or web shots and that I
haven't experienced.
As to my experience with the Tamron SP 35-80, I think it is a mighty
fine lens, basically on a par with the 35-105/3.5-4.5. Mind you, this is
not from any formal testing, but from my impressions of shots scanned at
2720 and 4000 dpi. This comparison I posted about color profiles for
Vuescan is all images from the Tamron
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/VuesProf/>. No full pixel detail, but
a lit of different subjects.
Zuiko Tamron SP Tamron SP Zuiko
Speed f2.8 f2.8-3.8 f2.8 f3.5-4.5
Focal length 35-80 35-80 35-105 35-105
Length Min 99 76.5 98 85
Diameter 69 64.5 76 64
Weight 650 386 650 470
Filter size 62mm 62mm 67mm 55mm
Close focus 0.6m 0.27m 1.0m 1.5m
Max. Macro 1:8.6 1:2.5 1:7.3 1:5
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|