Primarily the zoom range. I've never run across comparable tests for the
70-210 vs. either 35-2x0 model and I don't have (or want) the 70-210, so
I can't say anything firm about performance. My suspicion from other SP
and AT-X lenses of that era is that performance among the 3 is roughly
comparable. I use the Tokina 35-200 quite a bit and like the results.
The Tamron 35-210 is bigger and heavier and doesn't seem to get asked
out on photographic dates.
That 70-210 is neither fish nor fowl for me. The 80-200/2.8 is faster
and a better lens and the 60-300 is almost the exactly the same size and
weight, very close to as fast in the overlapping range and adds
significant extra reach and better CF/macro capability. The 70-210/3.5
does have one special feature. Like the Zuiko 35-70/3.6, zoom action is
coordinated with the lens hood so as to provide effective shielding at
all focal lengths.
Moose
Andrew Gullen wrote:
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
For that kind of money you should be able to get a Tamron SP
35-210/3.5-4.2 or a Tokina AT-X 35-200/3.5-4/5 (smaller and lighter than
the Tamron). Unless that 2/3 of a stop at the long end is a deal
breaker, both are a lot more lens than the 70-210.
Wider zoom range or better lenses?
< 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 >
|