For a test of the Tamron SP 80-200/2.8, look at Gary's test site
<http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm> and compare it
to the better fixed focal length lenses in the lengths at which it was
tested. It is likely the best lens in that focal range ever made and
better than many fixed fl lenses in its range. It is very solidly made,
including the metal bayonet hood. The price for all this and the
constant f2.8 aperture is size and weight.
So it's a killer lens, what are the downsides? With adaptall mount and
hood, it weighs 1,510 g (3 lb 5 oz.), has a minimum length of 179 mm (7
in.) and diameter of 82 mm (3.23 in.). It is hand holdable to some, but
not by me for any length of time. I'm not really comfortable without at
least a monopod. Close focus is limited, at 1.8 m (6 ft.). The tripod
mount is fine if you treat it well. It has some slight flex in its
structure, which can easily lead one to overtighten teh mounting bolt
and some people have actually broken them this way. Both tripod mount
and hood are NLA and hard to find, so I wouldn't buy one without them.
It is possible, according to a listee, to adapt the Oly tripod mount
from the 300/4.5 to fit it fairly easily.
A less common alternative is the Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8. Optically just
a small notch below the Tamron in Gary's tests, it is just a hair
smaller but a whopping 23 0ghter. It has a far better and less
obtrusive tripod mount. Build quaity of the lens is excellent. It's hood
is plastic and flimsier than the Tamron, but a lot lighter.
Moose
daniel wrote:
Anyone know how the 80-200 2.8 tamron is?
Dan
< 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 >
|