Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>The Phoenix 19-35 is reputed to be pretty good considering the price
><http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=208212&is=REG&addedTroughType=search>
>Also the Vivitar Series 1 19-35
><http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=162973&is=REG&addedTroughType=search>
>Both are probably the same lens reputedly made by Cosina.
>
>
I can confirm that, as I own the Viv and have played with a Phoenix. The
same lens is/was also sold under the Exacta name in Europe and I believe
was also sold as Samyang, even though they also had their own 18-28. The
AF version is also sold under the Promaster name, and almost certainly
others. Tamron and Tokina also sell lenses with the same 19-35/3.5-4.5
spec and about the same size and weight. They both look more different
from the Viv and Phoenix than the others, but that is likely cosmetics
at least in the case of the Tokina and I'll bet even the Tamron uses the
same glass, which one source says is from Hoya. When someone else has
already worked out a good optical formula and economies of scale are
already working in its favor, why reinvent the wheel?
>There also used to be a Samyang 18-28 said by some to be of better build
>quality (metal) than the Phoenix/Vivitar (plastic)
>
There have been several threads about these two in the past. There was
even info on the relative merits of metal vs. engineered plastic under
different kinds of impacts. However, no one on the list ever complained
about mechanical problems, let alone failure, with either lens that I
can recall. Personally, I have and treasure many all metal Zuiko, Kiron,
Tokina and Tamron lenses, but I think the Vivitar 19-35 is just as well
made from a practical standpoint and the light weight is certainly a
plus. I've been very happy with mine. More linear distortion than the
Zuiko primes, but not unusual for a such a WA zoom and that doesn't
matter much with most of my subjects.
>but said by others to be not quite as good optically. My guess is there's
>probably not much difference between them optically.
>
>
The only comparable objective info I know of is the tests Pop Photo did
of the Samyang <http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/%7Ebj/zuiko/361962.htm>
and the Vivitar Series 1
<http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/%7Ebj/zuiko/9552405.htm>. By the way,
the Viv and other 19-35s are MUCH cheaper that the price quoted in the
review. Used Samyangs shouldn't be expensive either.
All the above aside, different instances of any lens made over such a
period of time in so many incarnations are bound to vary. I'd been
contemplating for some time getting a real WA zoom for the 300D, which
is a minimum of $500. When the 5D opened the very real possibility of a
FF body in the not too distant future, I dropped that idea for now, at
least. But I still wanted something wider than I had, which was only
38mm eq.
So I bought a bargain grade Promaster 19-35/3.5-4.5 in EOS AF mount from
KEH for $105 +ship. leaving $400+ in the pot for a FF body. At least it
gets me down to 28mm eq. on the 300D and would be a very useful range on
a 5D, as the Viv is on OM bodies.
Curious, I made some informal tests of the Viv and Promaster on the
300D. I always mean to test new lenses before serious use, and I was
about to go on an extended trip to photogenic places. I took a series of
shots of a natural scene with lots of detail one stop down from wide
open. This doesn't, of course, test the edges beyond the APS-C sensor
size, but the results were interesting for me. Both lenses were pretty
sharp and had essentially identical overall image qualities. I don't
think there would be a visual difference in a print smaller than maybe
12x18. However, pixel peeping, the Promaster AF is definitely a bit
sharper at 19 and 24mm and the Viv is sharper at 35mm. The differences
are about the same center and edge; not surprising, as these are FF
lenses on a smaller sensor.
I didn't test any other apertures, figuring from the Pop Photo test of
the Viv that things would only get better at the heart of the aperture
range, then start to decline a bit from diffraction effects and my
results were already good enough that I was confident of good results on
the 300D on the upcoming trip.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|