The Tokina does not use an adaptall. The Tokina is lighter, but construction
quality is at least as good.
Photographically & financially you will not miss owning the Zuiko in this
case. There will be a few that will need at least to attempt to justify the
goofy amount of monetary difference, and find some test loophole so the
zuiko can appear to "win". New at maybe $300-$400 the Zuiko would have an
argument, but 700? 800? $1000 more? Its just goofy.
Larry
Daniel Tan wrote:
> True, from the given data the Tokina wins, but the Zuiko is smaller and
> doesn't require an adaptall? (?not too sure? I'm ignorant) just to mount
> it.
> But you're probably right. Objective measurements should guide purchases
> rather than brand loyalty.
> On that note: Has anyone ever used a Tokina/Tamron/vivitar/sigma 90mm
> macro? Comments?
>
> Daniel Tan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of whunter
> Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2003 8:07 PM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [OM] USD1100 for a Zuiko 90mm f/2 macro?
>
> Erudition is solicited from the talent on this list. I too would quest
> for a Z 90/2. Just get ready to write John a check when I ask whether
> it is something I want to look AT or look THRU for $1000. There have
> been some interesting comments in the past month re the comparable
> Tamron and Vivitar, but anecdotal comments. Objective measurements
> should help to guide purchasing by we mere mortals. Somewhere.........
> I found the following post containing a remarkably good collection of
>
> hard data on the Tokina ATX 90.
> http://albert.achtung.com/cameras/mycamerasystem.html#tokina90mm
>
> Unless I am missing something, Tokina wins this match. Given that Z.
> is a 'standard' and perhaps slightly lighter, do a 'wine taste' test
> (no label showing) on the Z, Tokina, Vivitar and Tamron you 'holics'.
> I might add that it is A-Ok to say no pragmatic difference. Pull the
> cork and tell Alice what is 'THRU'. 'AT', wrapped in my gel socks, is
> hardly payback for $1000.
> Thanks.
> Bill Hunter
>
> On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 04:30 AM, andrew fildes wrote:
>
> > There was one in the latest Aust. Photographic Trader for AU$1000 but
> > it had gone before WayneH got to it (and as a subscriber I get the mag
>
> > before it hits the stands). That would indicate that a good used one
> > is worth at least that much here if it sold so quickly. I've seen them
>
> > priced in Oz between AU$900-1200 for used. Brand new - got to be much
>
> > more! It's no bargain but he's not being unreasonable - but if JohnH.
> > has them for a good bit less, plus shipping.....
>
> < 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 >
|