Re: [OM] Tokina AT-X 35-70mm f2.8

[Moose]

I guess that's one of the problems with their use of MTF bench tests 
alone. If you check out Gary Reese's tests, the Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8 
shows very well. The AT-X 65-200 is one of my favorite lenses.
I've just received the first shots with my 24-40/2.8 back from 
processing/scanning. They look quite good on the 2000dpi mass scans. 
There is some barrel distortion at 24mm in one shot with a straight line 
along the bottom part of a frame. The clip-on lens shades for the 24-40 
are rare used and expensive new (~$50 with shipping and tax for me in 
CA.). I found a screw-in that seems to work, but I haven't tested it yet.
Moose

Jeff Keller wrote:

> photodo.com doesn't rate either of these two lenses but a number of the
> AT-X lenses don't show up as great performers. Even the 80-200 f2.8
> received a 2.9 rating. The Tamron 35-105 SP received a 3.6
> -jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Burris" <buja99@xxxxxxx>
>
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > Until I can get my hands on a Zuiko 35-70mm f3.6 I have an opportunity
> >    
> to pick up one of these lenses.  Can anyone comment on the quality?  I
> am suspecting excellent given the reputation of the 80-200mm f2.8.
>  
>
> > How about the 24-40mm?


< 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 >