I appreciate your citing gary's tests, but I, personally, don't put much
confidence in his tests considering methodology. I put more in others I've
read, and my own experiences in front of my eyes. The only thing I agree with
is that the Tokina ATX is better than the Tamron. The Vivitar (if it is the
f2.5) is the same formulation as the Tokina. At 4-5 times the price, its far
from you "get what you pay for". The almost 2/3 stop faster is the one
separation from the comparison.
Larry
"George M. Anderson, Photographer" wrote:
> Larry:
> You corrected your first mistake. You also corrected mine - F/2 is only
> about 2/3 of a stop faster than F/2.5. Still, that extra speed can be
> important.
>
> As hopefully you'll agree by looking at the following data taken from Gary
> Reese's lens tests, the Zuiko outperforms the Tamron at every aperture, the
> Vivitar at almost all apertures and rather significantly outperforms the
> Tokina at all but F/16 and F/22. (BTW, the Zuiko performed much better than
> this when used with mirror prefire.)
> The Tokina at $150 is a get-what-you-pay-for example. I'd rather have the
> best if possible.
>
> Winsor:
> The 80/4 is a great macro lens. But if you want to use it in the field, be
> prepared to carry a 65-116 tube or a bellows as it is useless without them.
>
> Aperture Center Corner
> Zuiko:
> f/2 C B-
> f/2.8 B- B-
> f/4 B+ B
> f/5.6 A- B
> f/8 A A-
> f/11 A A-
> f/16 A- B+
> f/22 B B-
>
> Tamron:
> f/2.5 C- C
> f/4 B- B
> f/5.6 B B
> f/8 B+ B+
> f/11 A- A-
> f/16 A- B+
> f/22 B B
> f/32 B- B-
>
> Vivitar Series 1
> f/2.5 B- C
> f/4 B B+
> f/5.6 B+ A-
> f/8 A- A-
> f/11 B+ B
> f/16 B B
> f/22 B B
>
> Tokina AT-X:
> f/2.5 B- C
> f/4 B C+
> f/5.6 C B-
> f/8 C+ B-
> f/11 B B-
> f/16 B+ B+
> f/22 B+ B+
> f/32 B- B
>
> George
> >
> > Actually, he said he has a 100mm f/2.8 not an f/2, and the 90
> > f2.5 Ttamron is
> > definately not out performed by the Zuiko - it is comparable.
> > Also, it is not a
> > full stop slower. The Tokina ATX 90mm F2.5 actually outperforms the Zuiko
> > according to various published tests. (confirmed to me in my own
> > comparisons).
> > It comes with its own optical matched multiplier, and at $150
> > it's simply a
> > better package.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > >
> > > > (the 100/2 is a much sought after lens and should bring a good
> > > price).
> > > > Then take the $$$s and buy a Zuiko 90/2 macro. It
> > outperforms the Tamron
> > > > and is a stop faster.
> > > >
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > > > I currently own the Olympus 100/2.8, but I've been looking
> > at the Tamron
> > > > > 90/2.5 for standard shooting and macro work. It seems like
> > a good way
> > > to
> > > > > have two lenses in one. Does anyone on the list have actual
> > > > > experience with
> > > > > the lens as a standard lens? I would imagine it would be quite
> > > > > similar to
> > > > > the Olympus 100/2.8 in performance, but I have no way to measure.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm quite interested in acquiring one, but maybe it's
> > redundant with a
> > > > > 100/2.8? (And I have the 50/3.5 Olympus Macro.)
> > > > > James.
> > >
> > > < 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 >
> >
> >
>
> < 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 >
|