Jacques Leonard designer schrieb:
>
> Hi,
> I am new to the Olympus list (I subscribed this week)
Welcome to the list.
> and I would
> appreciate your input on a subject that I am quite sure has already been
> discused in this group.
I think the Tamron 28-200mm hasn´t been discused. I think there are
reason why...
> I owned a venerable (...) OM-1 I bought new in 1974. I always liked this
> camera and still do.
> I have a 50mm f1.8 wich has been my prime lens with the OM-1. Over the
> years, I made superb pictures with it, and this lens would justify buying
> another Olympus body if mine was lost.
Yes, this lens is capable to render high quality images.
> A few years later, I bought a 200mm f5 (for it's size) and later on a 28mm
> f3.5. I don't use the 200 and very seldom the 28.
That´s a pitty.
> Now here is my problem. Two weeks ago, I went to an event where a zoom lens
> would have been very usefull.
So it´s an handling problem, you don´t like to change lenses? What was
the task an zoom might accomplished better?
> The OM line is quite limited in zoom lenses. Looking in Shutterbug
> magazine, I saw an add for a Tamron 28-200mm f3.8-5.6 Super now available
> for manual cameras. I went to a camera store near home, to see this lens. I
> had my OM-1 with me. First impression was... plastic. In the '70 lens were
> not made of plastic.
Yes, this awfull cheapish plastic with printed on writing, but please
don´t forget what such an complicated lens would cost if it would be
solid made out of metal and how much it would weigth.
>I asked the salesman if this lens was good. He was
> probably honest by saying it wasn't bad, that it was a good lens for 4x6.
For family holiday snapshoot type of photography, it should be OK if
high quality is no issue.
> My first question is regarding this lens. Is it good or not?
I haven´t used this lens, but people who had it, told me it is not a
great lens. From 28-135mm lacking contrast and sharpness (primes are
significant better) and above 135mm up to 200mm it´s even worse, it has
lot of distorsion too (not for all tasks a problem). It´s a slow lens,
you will notice this even with prime lenses of the same starting
aperture, the long extension and many elements will eat up the light.
If you are used to the quality of your 50mm Zuiko and value it, you will
be not lucky with such a lens, it´s a (very big) compromise.
> If I use a
> tripod with it, could I get pictures good enough to make fairly large
> prints or would it still be of insuficient quality?
A tripod is always good to get the maximum image quality of an lens, but
can not improve it´s quality further. If you are considering to use an
tripod, the additional work of changing lenses shouldn´t be a problem,
but your Zuikos will give you a better image quality.
> The lens has the
> advantage of being small, light and I think practical with it's 28-200
> span.
IMHO these are the only advantages (an pinhole lens would be even
smaller and lighter ;-)
> Inquiring about the Zuiko lenses (none in stock but he can order) the
> salesman told me that they would probably be better in quality and also
> give better results than the Tamron.
The sales person seems to be a honest person.
> Now, to cover approximately the same focal length, I should buy two Zuiko
> lenses, the 35-70mm f3.5-4.8 and the 70-210 f4.5-5.6.
>
> What do you think of all this? Would I be better with the 2 Zuiko lenses
> instead of the Tamron?
This 2 seperate lenses would be better (less compromise)
> He also told me the 70-210 was made by Cosina.
AFAIK both _new_ lenses are made by Cosina.
> So is
> this as good as a Zuiko or as a Cosina? Is it better, similar or worse than
> a Tamron?
The Zuiko primes are much better.
> As you can see I am quite mixed up in all this! Checking in a few
> magazines, I also saw listed in a buyer's guide a 65-200 and a 50-250 made
> by Olympus. Are these lenses still available? How do they stand compared to
> the other ones?
Only used ones are available, the consens on the list is, that both a
very good lenses (much better than the above mentioned zooms) and
especialy the 50-250mm should be very close to prime lens image quality.
You might try Gary Reese lenstests:
http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
Regards
Richard
< 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 >
|