> >> How can a zoom lens be sharper than fix focal lens ?
> >> Happy Christmas time for all.
> >> Christian
>
> There may also be sample variation. Or different variants of lenses as the
> design evolves. Someone on eBay just claimed he had to try something like
6
> or 8 100/2.8's to get one that *really* sang (grain of salt here - this is
> the lens he was selling :-) ). I tried out the Tamron, compared it with
the
> parallel Zuiko shots and passed. Maybe I should have tried another.
>
> Regards,
> Andrew
Andrew,
I bought the aforementioned 100 f2.8. Having purchased a new 85 f2 earlier
this year and a used 90mm f2.5 (49mm) Tamron in 2001, it seemed time for
another roughly equivalent focal length (although I guess I should have
waited until 2003). This is what the seller of the 100mm had to say about
the lens (after I purchased it):
<Begin quote>
Just to tell you some about this lens. I have been a professional
newspaper, magazine and commercial photographer for over 30 years and had
just about retired when I got a chance to do some 16 X 20 and 20 X 24
posters. Knowing the great demand this would put upon a lens, I bought a
Tamron 90mm, a Vivitar 105 macro and three 100mm Olympus lenses. This one
was best of all. It compared to the 105 Nikon and the 100 F3.5 Zeiss for
Contax I had used before. I believe it will please you in every way.
<End quote>
This is a little different from what he said in his eBay ad, but it makes
for a good story anyway. I hope to take a few shots with it over the
holidays. I doubt if I'll keep both it and the 85mm, but perhaps I will.
The 100mm was no Fang, but $121.80 USD for a relatively new model was pretty
good (especially since I see E. Zuiko models going for more quite often).
Mike
< 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 >
|