AG Schnozz wrote:
>
> Personally, I'd stick with just the one brand of lens. There are
> coloring and bokeh nuances that favor a single lens family. Also,
> other things like focus-ring direction and zoom-ring locations.
>
Well, that's what I've done, 17-35 Di, 28-300 Di and 90 mm Di macro, all
from Tamron. I do like the way they all operate similarly. The two
zooms, in particular, are so alike in size, weight and control layout
that it's a breeze to switch. The macro is naturally different, with no
zoom ring and a big focus ring with push-pull AF./MF switching, which I
like.
> ..........
> I'll admit, I am partial to Tokina over Tamron. To me, the Tamrons
> (except for the 300/2.8) feel plasticy and the focus rings aren't in
> the right position. But that's just me and my A.R. ways.
>
I was the same with MF lenses for the OMs. Where they made comparable
lenses Tokinas were generally slightly smaller and lighter but of equal
quality. The Tamron 35-105/2.8, 35-80 and 60-300 were winners for me,
though. I guess I mostly was happy with Tokina AT-X, Tamron SP and
Kirons, and choose based on specific lens characteristics.
For AF, I am drawn to Tamron for just the reasons you don't like them.
They are small, light and I don't mind the plasticy bit at all in trade
for that - as long as the IQ is good.
The AF Tokinas beat the wrong drum for me. I don't really believe big
and heavy is necessary for reliability or IQ these days. And fast is
far less important than it was with film.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|