I don't know the lens in question, but I find it hard (but not impossible)
to believe that Tamron are using different optical formulations for these
two lenses, particularly since the MF allegedly handles like a "designed for
AF" lens. If they were different, I would expect the AF to be more up - to -
date (not necessarily better). Could this be the sample variation for which
Tamron used to be justifiably famous? At one time a UK retailer (can't
remember which) used to MTF test every Tamron before sale, and the price
reflected the result...
I have to admit to quite liking some of the Tamron lenses, but it is quire
impossible to build a viable system either entirely from, or including them,
since the filter sizes are all over the place and the handling is so
variable. I suppose that a one - off do - it - all lens has a place, but
I'll stick to Zuikos.
Of course, the Zuiko 35 - 80 suffers from exactly the same problem as the
Tamrons. How Olympus thought they could sell a seriously premium lens with
no system support is beyond me. mine tends to stay at home, because the 35 -
70 1:3.6 does 950f the job for much less hassle and weight.
Julian.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger D. Key" <rdk@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Tamron vs. Zuiko
Note that Photodo's grading of the Tamron MF SP 35-105/2.8 (which I
mentioned earlier in the tnhread as a better comparison sizewise to the
Zuiko 35-80) is 3.6, the same as the Zuiko.
I believe that this list has some very satisfied owners of the Tamron
35-105.
Roger Key, Copenhagen DK
>I had a Tamron 28-105/2.8 for a few months before I traded it for the
Zuiko
>35-80/2.8. I had no complaints on the image quality of the Tamron, it was
>top-notch. And the extra range over the Zuiko on both ends was very nice.
>
>What I didn't like about the Tamron was it's handling. 1) I felt that it
>got too big when zoomed out. It's an 82mm filtered lens. With the tulip
>hood, I felt like I had far too much lens in my hand for normal
situations.
>I got several comments when I used it in photo-journalistic and close-in
>situations like: "Wow, look at that thing!". 2) Also, it was obviously
>designed as an AF lens, so the focusing ring is relatively tiny compared
to
>the zoom-control ring. I didn't like this and I also didn't like the feel
>of the focusing or zooming. 3) Perhaps I'm just a metal-lens guy, but I
>was a bit put-off by all the polycarbonate.
>
>I too used it with an OM-4t and a MD2, which IMO you pretty much had to in
>order to get any reasonable handling. I also frequently used a BG2, which
>made for a huge rig.
>
>Also, if I remember right, it focuses in a reverse direction from the
>Zuiko, but I may be wrong on that one.
>
>I think I've got some test shots that I did against Zuiko primes in my
>slide files somewhere. I'll dig them up if I get time. The net was it
was
>almost indistinguishable from my primes, except the 90/2.
>
>Skip
Photodo:
Grade: 2.4 35mm/AF Tamron AF 28-105/2,8 LD Aspherical (IF)
Grade: 3.6 35mm/MF Olympus 35-80/2,8
Photodo is not the only place I have seen that did not think highly
of the Tamron.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
?
< 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 >
< 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 >
|