I've made several posts on the Tamron 28-105 vs. the Zuiko 35-80 over the past
two years. The archives should have the details.
In summary: image quality seemed comperable (i.e., great!). Handling, I much
prefer the Zuiko; the Tamron is an aufocus design with MF as an afterthought,
and it is very large in diameter and length when zoomed out to 105mm.
Skip
----------------------------------------
Please reply to skipwilliams at pobox.com
I might not notice personal emails to this address
----------------------------------------
>
>Subject: RE: [OM] Tamron 80-200/2.8 versions
> From: "Bob Fenstermacher" <bobfenstermacher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:48:48 -0800
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Thanks Moose,
>
>I am constantly amazed by the depth of knowledge that this group has-it's
>astounding. We newer guys/gals are a bit intimidated occasionally but those
>of you who have been around a bit longer are worth the kidding and (usually
>among the oldies) occasional technical disagreements. (I can't even follow
>the threads because I have no idea what the technology is you're discussing.
>If I keep reading long enough, I may get it, huh?)
>
>As to the 80-200, I may be getting one soon. Both of my (very different)
>Vivitar S1 70-210's have some shortcomings as well as a Vivitar S1 28-90
>that is the weakest of the three. Will also look into the Tokina 80-200/2.8
>as well as the Tamron 28-105/2.8 which is an $800 new lens (B&H ) vs. the
>Zuiko 35-80. As you undoubtedly know, Tom Scales just sold his Zuiko for
>$1299 which is $300 less than retail if you could find one in a store, but
>$400+ more than they used to go for on xb#y.
>
>Also, going to work on my longer lens techniques ...there's so much to
>learn.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Bob
>
>Moose wrote:
>>Well, I've never heard of different versions.
>
>>As to whether it a sharper lens than a Vivitar S1 70-210, the answer is
>>an unequivocal yes.
>
>>As to how much sharper, that depends first on which version of the
>>Vivitar you have. There are 3 versions, detailed here
><http://medfmt.8k.com/third/cult.html#vivitar>...
>
>>How much sharper depends second on the individual lens you have.
>
>>How much sharper depends third on technique...
>
>Moose
>
>Bob Fenstermacher wrote:
>
>>Give a relative newbie a break, are there two versions of this thing or am
>I mistaken?
>>
>>I've been using a Vivitar S1 70-210 and wondering why my shots are soft for
>all this time, so any improvement will be an improvement.
>>
>>Now that I look kind of stupid, does anyone want to part with this
>obviously heavy, large, ungainly, unsharp lens...??
>>
>
>
>
>< 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 >
|