usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> That was actually a goof--I meant to send the link to myself for later
> reading.?
Ah.
> One list member found the Tam SP F2.8? 35-105? wanting in the corners until
> stopped down more than he liked.? I wanted to familiarize? myself with the
> flavors of the AT-X 2.8 series.? Thanks for your informative comments and I
> now consider it a? fortuitous error.
>
I might as well go on, then, and mention the Tamron SP 35-80/2.8-3.8.
Considerably more compact and lighter than the 35-105/2.8, it trades
reach for both those virtues and useful macro capability, focusing
directly to 1:2.5 at the long end (60-80mm) - the useful end for field
macro work.
> Not much of a reference. Left out the lovely, build, feel and image quality,
> 24-40/2.8 AT-X. Perhaps outside the range of interest, but the 60-120/2.8
> AT-X, another excellent performer, also deserves a mention as
> part of the AT-X f2.8 series.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|