How about Tokina ATX 35-70/2.8?
Any comment to this lens?
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: [OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #498
Author: PC {jalbert@xxxxxxx} at BEACON
Date: 9/18/98 7:57 AM
someone wrote that the vivitar 35-85/2.8 was an older design, and questioned
whether it could hold up to a new, state of the art zoom like the
35-80/2.8 Zuiko. the short answer is that it can hold up to current
model primes so presumably the 35-80/2.8, but I haven't used that new
zuiko zoom. the 35-85/2.8 vivitar was a spectacular lens for its time.
The way they were able to achieve this result given the technology of
the time was that they didn't try to make it a true zoom. rather, it
is a varifocal lens, which means it doesn't stay in focus when the focal
length is changed. Professional photographers Roger Hicks and Frances
Schultz,
in their "Lens Books" say that the vivitar 35-85/2.8 is one of the very few
lenses they have used with "magic". They then go on to say that they can't
define magic, but it is something that once you see it, you know it.
I'm not sure how to interpret this, but the 35-85/2.8 is a superb lens that
can stand up with the very expensive f/2.8 standard zooms of today.
But you can always pay 10x the price to get a lens that is 5mm shorter
at the long end of the focal range, but has the Zuiko label. The zuiko
also is a true zoom that stays in focus when zoomed. This can be useful
not only for action or quick focusing, but also to focus at 35mm, you
focus at 80mm with shallow DOF, then zoom back to 35mm and shoot. Can't
do this with the varifocal vivitar.
re: 35/2.8 and flare-- I was never able to flare the single-coated 35/2.8
Zuiko I used to own, but I never pointed it at the sun high in the sky.
However, even 30 degrees about the horizon it would image the sun just fine.
I sometimes wonder if the sample-to-sample consistency of the f/2.8
Zuikos is as good as the f/2 ones.
lastly, I don't believe Nikon ever made a 20/2. Some years ago, they came
out with a 20/2.8 that made a big splash that it was finally faster than
f/3.5, and no f/2 version has been made since then. moreover, no 20/2
is listed in McBroom's Bluebook along side the 20/2.8, 20/3.5, and 20/4
nikkors
that are listed. The 20/2.8 nikkor *is* larger than the 21/2 Zuiko.
j. albert
< 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 >
< 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 >
|