The Tokina AF AT-X Pro's tripod ring does not come off and neither does
its foot. But, at 30x40mm the foot is large enough to make a
comfortable hand rest. Or, if you don't like that, you can rotate the
foot to someplace else. Note that AT-X and AT-X Pro lenses are
different designs.
Chuck Norcutt
On 3/29/2011 11:41 AM, Jeff Keller wrote:
> My experience is that the MF Tamron is definitely sharper than the MF Tokina
> at the long end. As Moose mentioned it is also significantly heavier. As
> much as I prefer the weight of the Tokina, the Tamron is the fast lens I
> almost always choose to take with.
>
> My Tamron came without a tripod mount so I put the Olympus tripod mount on
> it. The Olympus mount works very well. Later I obtained the Tamron mount but
> the Olympus tripod adapter works better. Mike described how little work it
> takes to make it work. Tamron sold at least two very similar looking
> adapters but one is significantly smaller.
>
> Adding to the trivia ... the foot of the Tokina tripod adapter comes off. I
> had to buy one several years ago.
>
> Jeff Keller
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moose [mailto:olymoose@xxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: Re: [OM] FS - It is time to pay to the piper . . .
>
> I've not seen the AF version Chuck has. I have both the Tokina and Tamron MF
> versions. The Tamron is a tiny bit longer,
> but the big difference is that it's 30% heavier, weighed with caps and
> tripod mounts.
>
> The seriously robust steel hood for the Tamron is also much heavier than the
> plastic one for the Tokina. The net result
> is that the Tokina seems not only lighter, but smaller, in the hand and on
> the camera.
>
> One thing Bill didn't mention is whether the Tamron he's selling has the
> tripod mount. You really want a mount for this
> lens. I think at least a monopod is needed to use either of these lenses
> well. For me, it doesn't take long trying to
> hand hold them to get really unsteady. I've got some good shots with the
> Tammy on a monopod, though.
>
> The Tammy mount is very hard to find. I suspect that's because of design
> flaws in the mount itself. There is slight flex
> in the mount itself. It's easy, as I almost did, to conclude that the flex
> you feel is because the mount isn't tight
> enough around the lens. Tighten down the lens attachment screw really hard -
> and the mount breaks.
>
> The Tokina mount can't be removed, but is unobtrusive and sturdy. I believe
> I recall others here have said that the Oly
> mount for the 300/4.5 and 65-116 tube is easily adapted to work on the
> Tammy. That is probably superior to the original
> Tammy mount.
>
> Gary's tests showed the Tamron to be a bit better than the Tokina. I've done
> no formal comparison, but the Tokina is a
> fine lens. The Tammy is more flexible, in that it can be mounted on
> practically any camera with their interchangeable
> mounts. My OM mount Tokina could, of course, be mounted on EOS cameras with
> the same adapter as for my Zuikos.
>
> 80-200 Trivia Moose
> --
>
>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|