Brian Gray wrote:
> In fact I already have an f/8 Tamron SP 500mm mirror lens with an
>Adaptall 2 OM mount and four 30.5 mm filters.
>Three questions then:
>1) Is there anybody in the group who would recommend not trading up to
>the Zuiko, and if so why.
They will ask quite a bit more than your Tamron is worth. The Tamron is
already considered above average for 500mm mirror lenses, so one could argue
you are not gaining much besides a name change. However, that may not be
enough to deter you. But how much do you anticipate using a 500 f8 mirror
lens? Would the Zuiko be "better enough"? Yeah, go ahead and burn me at the
stake ;-)
>3) Where can I find some more prices I can quote to the dealer (Honest
>ones as we have dealt both ways in the past and I wish to keep on good
>terms).
First stop should be Amateur Photographer classifieds. Also check the
websites of MXV, Ffordes, Solo, Morris, Mr Cad, Jessop and other reputable
photo shops with an online presence. You can use Ace Cameras' listing in AP
as being the roof of reasonable dealer prices - I find they usually ask top
dollar but equally have only fine condition items to sell. There is a UK
dealer portal at www.ukcamera.com, IIRC. One OM list member has a page
charting the range of prices for Zuikos on ebay. Bear in mind that it's the
American market, and you would pay more over here.
You may wish to check the reputation of the Tamron at the cult third party
lens page on Robert Monaghan's site (sorry no URL to hand). I suggest you
use Google (www.google.com) to search for references, if you don't already.
www.photo.net might have archived discussions on mirror lenses. Tamron have
got to be one of the top third party names, at least with the SP range (the
Adaptall-2 were a mixed bag). I wouldn't be ashamed of owning one. The 17,
90 f2.5, 70-210 f3.5, 80-200 f2.8, 300 f2.8 and 400 f4 are as good as most
of us could ever want. Build quality is usually impressive. Wasn't the 35-80
f2.8 unusually sharp too?
Also check the OM list archives - these lenses have been discussed before.
AP is giving away a roll of Royal Gold 400 (24exp) this week. I've used this
film and like it - it's somewhere between normal punchy colour neg and the
'portrait' types. Grain is pretty fine too, Kodak data sheets show the
200asa film has only a slight advantage in this department. The new Supra
films are less grainy, but I think Royal Gold is the 'amateur' version of
Supra - the curves etc are damn close.
Simon E.
< 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 >
|