I agree that the Tamron SPs are generally excellent lenses and well
built, but would not put them head and shoulder above all other
non-camera manufacturer lenses. The adaptall system is wonderful and
almost unique. On the other hand, I really like the Tokina AT-X series.
My sense is that they are generally equal to each other optically.
Skips tests show the SP 80-200/2.8 to be slightly better than the AT-X,
but they are both so good, you won't see the difference except in a
print 11x14 or larger in shots taken with careful technique. They are
about the same size, but the AT-X is a little smaller and much lighter.
The SP hood is clearly tougher, but heavier, but the AT-X tripod mount
is far superior. Otherwise, build quality seems the same to me
Again in the 35-200/210 range, the AT-X is much lighter. As with the
80-200s, the AT-X is only slightly smaller when measured, but seems
noticeably smaller and easy to handle than the SP. The ergonomic
difference is so great that the AT-X is one of my favorites and the SP
an also ran. I've done no comparisons of optical performance, nor read
any test of these 2, but am very pleased with the AT-X. Again, I don't
see any difference in build quality in the sense of strength and
reliability, but the AT-X is better in terms of design for use.
I don't have the SP equivalent, but the AT-X 150-500/5.6 is a very well
built and optically excellent lens.
I don't have the SP 24-48/3.5-3.8, but can say that the AT-X 24-40/2.8
is faster and is beautifully built and finished. Haven't had it long,
but first pics look good.
In mirror lenses, the Sigma 600/8 is head and shoulders above the 500/8
SP in fit and finish.
The Tamron Asph 35-105/2.8 is not officially an SP, but an outstanding
lens with nothing for Oly that comes close to its combo of performance,
size/weight and price. If it had semi-macro, it would be untouchable.
The SP 60-300 is another exceptional lens with reach and outstanding
macro capability. I haven't seen an AT-X 50-250, but would be curious to
try one.
I like the SPs and have, as you can see, quite a few of them. It's just
not my experience that they are in a class by themselves among 3rd party
lenses. It seems to me that the SPs are generally optically good enough
to be Zuikos, but they fall short of the compact precision feel, fit and
finish of Zuikos.
If there is another brand that really stands out for optical and
mechanical quality, it is Kiron. They are gems that are obviously
outstanding compared to their contemporaries, but quit making their own
brand long enough ago that others have surpassed them in zoom
range/speed since. I'd put the 105/2.8 macro up against any other macro
in that range. I have the early SP 90/2.5 and liked it, but don't use it
except for flat copy work (for which it is excellent) since I got the
Kiron, probably because it only goes to 1:2 without fussing with another
piece.
In the pre SP/AT-X days, I think the Tokina RMC series were generally
optically superior to the Tamrons and optically similar to the Kirons,
although not as nicely built.
Moose
Piers Hemy wrote:
You aren't alone, Skip, Bill. In more than 20 years OM-ownership, I have
only owned 50mm Zuikos - for lenses it has been Tamron SP since 1981, when I
paid more for the 35-80/2.8-3.8 than I had paid a couple of years earlier
for the OM-10+50/1.8!
Compared to other 'off-brand' lenses I have used, the build quality, feel,
appearance and results are in a different league.
< 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 >
|