Another option to consider is an extension tube. If you are not doing
flat copy work, an extension tube and the 100/2.8 might suprise you. I
recently sold my Tamron 2.5 after comparing the results with my 85 f/2
and an extension tube. For flowers, ect that I do the 85/ext combo works
very well. It is also lighter and more compact than the Tamron was.
To answer your orginal question, the Tamron as a standard lens will not
dissapoint. It is a very fine lens and compares well overall with the
Zuikos in real life shooting. color balance(on mine anyway) was slightly
cooler than the Zuiko. The major reason I let the Tamron go was
handling, bulk and weight. (I don't like the DOF lever on the Tamron.)
Jim Couch
james olson wrote:
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 >
|