Once again, I'm forced to agree with Larry <g>.
I don't think you can automatically assume the Zuiko's are better. There are
many fine third-party lenses, many of them in ranges that Olympus never
made.
For example, the Tamron 90/2.5 is awfully close to the 90/2 Zuiko, for a lot
less money. I've owned them both and would give the Zuiko the edge, but
it's not a big edge -- and in side-by-side comparisons, I think it would
take a loupe to tell the difference.
Another example, although I've never seen one, would be the Tamron 300/2.8
(do I have that right?). The closest Zuiko is the 350/2.8 for gobs more.
How about the Tamron 80-200/2.8? Wish there was a Zuiko there. Might be
the perfect lens for Smitty's football games if he can get on the sidelines.
Just examples, all of which I have learned about here.
Tom
From: "Larry"
> At the risk of being flamed, this isn't ALWAYS true, either in all
respects.
>
> Larry
>
>
> Roger Wesson wrote:
>
> >
> > The zuikos are better lenses than their
> > third party counterparts, so by paying more, you will get a better
> > lens.
< 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 >
|