I have the Tamron 400 f/4 and did a test of 6 shots for fun of the SAME
object (Haleakala Crater) one with a
Zuiko 21 f/3.5
Zuiko 50 f/1.4
Zuiko 135 f/2.8,
3 with the Tamron 400 and 1.4 and 2X, 3 shot w/Tamron,
I have to say, I see no difference in the 400 by its self or with the
1.4 or 2x.
So should I wait for a Zuiko 1.4? Sure, only because it's easier to get
on/off, but no way in hell will I lay out $300 + for one when the Tamron
are right there if not better? (blasphemy)
Dan
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:47:28 -0400
From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] 1.4x and 2x was MF stuff
I have shot stuff with the 300/2.8 Tamron and the 1.4X-A
Teleconverter that, except for the increased image size, is
Indistinguishable from stuff shot with the 300/2.8 without the
1.4X-A. Can't say the same for the 2X-A. It's really not even
close. I've had the same experience with the 300/4.5 Zuiko and
the 400/6.3 Zuiko. But -- blasphemy to follow -- the Tamron is
Sharper than either Zuiko, so that's why I use it as a reference.
Walt
< 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 >
|