>
> How does it do at longer focal lengths? The one I used many years ago
> degraded significantly as it was zoomed longer, especially at wide
> apertures. I just assumed it was inherent to the design. Since I
> shoot wide open or close to it at long focal lengths, I sold it.
>
I think its still very good even at 200mm perhaps at f2.8 its not quite as
sharp at 200mm as 80mm but other than that I can't see any problems.
Contrast is still very good. I have a shoot of the hong kong convention
centre taken from kowlon over the river towards the convention centre done
at about 1800mm to 200mm f5.6 or maybe f8 om4 ti mirror and app prefire on
a tripod and its the sharpnest night photo I have done so far (I have to
travel to hong kong on business 3 times a year and in the evens I have
little to do apart from night photography)... Far better edges than the
24mm f2.8 Mv I have - which is *soggy* around the edges for night
photography - realy disapointing! A little better than the Olympus 35-70
f3.6 @ f8. I would say the edge definition on the 80-200mm night shoot is
very very nearly equal to the centre definition of the Olympus 28mm f2!
its only the weight that stops me carying around mountains each day.
P.S.
The tarmon 90mm vs 80-200 was done in my bedroom taking photos of a wall
full of cds and books, scaning in and looking at the titles on the spines
of individual cds. Again tripod and app and mirror prefire. If I remember
correctly the white spins of the cds on the 90mm was a little yellow
tinted and the tamton *very* slightly blue tinted - but this is pushing my
memory I do remember there was a colour difference between the two.
I would say that I have not got good quality out of the tamron 80-200 hand
holding it. I think it requires very high shutter speeds - or it could be
I am not very steady!
Regards
James
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|