I'll agree on the Tokina also. I've found it sharper than the Zuiko. That might
make it too sharp, which some say is a bad thing.
Those spending 5 or 8 times the Tokina price usually have to come up with some
"you get what you pay for" bokeh type comment that is simply incorrect here. The
difference of F2 - F2.5 is not anywhere near $600 (or more).
Larry
Geilfuss Charles wrote:
> Wayne, I don't think you would go wrong with the Tamron nor with the
> Tokina/2.5 Macro. I have the latter and love it. Albert speaks very highly
> of his as well.
>
> Charlie Geilfuss
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wayne Culberson [mailto:waynecul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 3:08 PM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [OM] Zuiko 90/2 vs. Tamron 90/2.8
>
> >When I came into possession of a NIB 90/2 Zuiko macro a few weeks
> >ago, I promised to do some comparison test shots with it and the
> >90/2.8 Tamron macro.
>
> >(3) Neither lens is distinguishable from the other in terms of
> >sharpness and/or contrast. I see absolutely no difference in
> >either area. And I looked hard!
>
> >(4The bottom line is that both lenses
> >produce really fuzzy and smooth bokeh, about as good as it gets.
> >Walt
>
> Thanks for the comparison. Sound maybe like a 90mm might be my first Tamron.
> Time to start looking I guess.
>
> Wayne
>
> < 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 >
< 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 >
|