It's a different design and probably vignettes wide open -dark
corners. If rear element is larger this may not be so, anyway Tamron's
are only comparable when they are SP's and you did not say.
---Shawn Wright <swright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Today in the local used shop I spotted a lens I've never seen
> before, a Tamron 28/2.5 adaptall mount. Alongside it were Zuikos:
> 28/3.5 and 28/2.8 and 35/2.8.
>
> I didn't handle the Tamron as I was in a hurry, but what I found
> curious was that the front element was definitely much smaller
> diameter than the slower Zuiko 2.8, *and* possibly the 3.5 too
> (they weren't close together). Does this mean Zuiko front elements
> are just generous in their use of glass, maybe contributing to their
> strong wide angle performance? Or is it meaningless and
> dependent on too many other factors in the lens design?
> And is the Tamron any good? I could find no mention of it in the
> archives.
>
> Just curious...
> Shawn & Janis Wright
> swright@xxxxxxxxx
> http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/~swright
> (Olympus List Archives)
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|