No, I don't have the Tokina, and I don't intend on buying one, as I'm quite
satisfied with my Tamron.
I bought my Tamron brand new in the early 80's for around $750.
Skip
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Please reply to [skipwilliams at pobox.com]
Direct responses to the email address on the header may get lost
----------------------------------------------------------------->
>Subject: Re: [OM] 80-200/2.8 Tamron
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:01:37 -0700
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>You have the Tokina too? How have they compared optically for you? I've
>not seen any difference, but haven't done any head to head comparisons.
>You might have some opinions on C.H.'s post?
>
>>, the Tamron SP 80-200/2.8 is one of my favorite lenses, despite it's weight
>>and size. It's usually cheaper and MUCH easier to find than the Tokina due
>>to the Adaptall mount.
>>
>I agree that the Tamron is a lot more common, particularly since the
>adaptall means any one ever made will fit Oly. I paid a lot more for the
>Tamron than for the Tokina. I bought the Tamron early in my internet
>byuing experience and paid top $ for a lens in great shape. I later kept
>a long, patient lookout for the Tokina and eventually got one off the
>'Bay for $165, complete with box, hood, tripod mount and instructions in
>a little better cosmetic shape than the Tamron. I've since seen better
>deals on the Tamron than I took, but never quite as good as the Tokina.
>
>>They can get zoom creep as the lubricant dries out, which requires a service.
>>
>Or just living with it :-)
>
>Moose
>
>
>
>
>< 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 >
|