Oops, in my enthusiasm, I mis-typed. I have a Tokina AT-X 150-500/f5.6,
not a 200-500mm. My experience and what I've heard lead me to believe
that performance would be essentially the same for a Tamron SP, which is
an Adaptall lens, 200-500/f5.6.
Focal Length 150-500 200-500
Aperture f5.6 f5.6
Min. Focus 2.5m 2.5m (1:3.5 repro ratio
- macro by advertising standards!)
Length 314.5mm 365mm (both with Nikon mt.)
Max. Dia. 104mm 105mm
Weight 2230g 2724g
Filter size
Front 95mm 95mm
Rear 35.5mm 43mm
The Tokina is rarer. I paid $445 with a much more useful Tamrac case
than the case the Tamron comes with. I don't know if Tokina made a case
for theirs.I've seen one other on eBay since. I think it was more, but
don't seem to be able to find my note on it. Tamrons have gone for
$318-750 on eBay over the last year or so.
Overall, I'm happy I stumbled on the Tokina before a Tamron. It's
shorter and lighter and covers a greater focal range.
Oh.......I almost forgot, it takes great pictures.
Jeff Keller wrote:
I am very interested in learning more about the 200-500 ...
(I've seen a Tamron with a Nikon mount that appears to be
replaceable) Is yours a Tamron?
Does it use an adaptall mount?
How painful is it to carry with?
Is the quality good?
Thank you,
-jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "dreammoose" <dreammoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Audobon's Mammal Guide, would I have carried a tripod on my hike? Hell
yes! I'd have carried my Bogen 3236 and 3047 head, 200-500mm zoom and
Just MHO,
Moose
< 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 >
|