Actually, I typically saw the Tokinas sell for significantly more than the
Tamrons, although I haven't priced them in a couple of years. My rationale for
this phenomonen was that the Tamron, being usable across many different
platforms with it's adaptall mount, is more common and thus cheaper. The
Tokina, being a dedicated mount lens, and pretty uncommon in the OM mount, is
bid up in price when it appears by those few people hunting for it.
Also, pretty much any lens could have a better tripod mounting system than the
Tamron, which isn't very good, IME.
Skip
>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Tamron 80-200 f 2.8
> From: Larry <halpert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:47:20 -0500
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>Ultimately, really the same image quality, but lighter, better tripod mount,
>and less famous
>so its less expensive.
>
>Larry
>
>
>NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > With all the praise being sung of this lens,
>> > how do you people rate the similar Tokina 80-200 f2.8 ?
>
>
>The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
>List Problem"
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|