In a message dated 8/7/01 4:35:49 PM Central Daylight Time, GPaul64@xxxxxxx
writes:
> Gerry,
>
> Wow. So you've used the Tamron 400 *and* the Zuiko 350...
>
> Although we have the benefit of Gary Reese's excellent optical evaluations
> of these lenses, would you care to add your opinion of how these lenses
> compare from a user perspective? What subjects or situations are each lens
> better suited for? Which would/have you chosen for the long term,
> considering cost, cost as no object, and portability?
>
Gregg,
I owned a black 350 in the early '90's and sold it due to a lack of use. I
started shooting seriously again in the mid '90s and found a very nice Tamron
400 F4.0 I couldn't pass up. Last year I stumbled upon an OM 2S and 350 for a
very good price and I couldn't pass them up either. Trying to decide which
one to keep was very hard. The Tamron is about 4 pounds lighter and 50mm
longer. The Tamron also has a very short focus through which I liked. Looking
at slides taken with two different 350's and the Tamron 400 F4.0 reveals to
my eyes through an 8x loupe no image quality difference. The Tamron, at 4
pounds less weight, is easier to justify taking on hikes or to track meets,
etc... I enjoy bird photography and the extra 70mm the Tamron has with 1.4's
attached to each lens is definitely an advantage. I wish Olympus had
developed a matched 2x convertor for the 350. A 700 F 5.6 lens that focuses
to 10 feet would be an impressive combination. The Oly is one stop faster and
if it's speed you need in a long lens, the 350 is about as good as it gets. A
list member now owns the Tamron. I hope he likes it!
Gary Faulkenberry
< 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 >
|