On Tuesday, February 4, 2003, at 03:32 PM, danrich wrote:
Tell me why you would buy a $800 90mm Zuiko macro over a less than
half the
cost Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro the out performs the Zuiko 4.3 vs. 4.2 ?
Are we nuts or are we getting into logo's or collection?
Dan
I will let people who own one and who perhaps replaced their Tamron
with one answer in specifics. The obvious one is speed and isolating
depth of field when needed. Small gains always cost a lot more. A
100/2.8 costs a lot less than a 100/2.0 even when they are both OMs. I
have the Tamron 2.5 model. It feels chintzy and the flimsy plastic hood
feels cheap even though it makes nice images. It does not handle like
an OM lens and I have to fumble around with it whenever I use it
because it is different. It is heavy and clunky for its speed. I do not
use it much because I worry that the poorly made adaptor will
eventually grind off the sensor button on my OM4T. I bought it new and
anyone would love to get an OM lens at that depreciation rate. I, for
one, would replace it with the Zuiko 90/2 or the 85, but I have begun
to wonder whether I will be shooting all digital with a new camera a
couple of years from now.
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California, USA
< 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 >
|