Have you looked at Gary's reviews of these 2 lenses? If the Tamron
weren't there, you'd be really impressed with the Tokina, and it is
indeed an excellent lens. The Tokina is a teensy bit smaller overall and
a whooping 23% lighter. Its tripod mount is a smaller and vastly
superior design to the Tamron's.
I'm sure the Tamron is ultimately the better lens, but not convinced
there is any practical difference in any situation other than with a
steady subject and sturdy tripod. There is actually some flex in the
Tamron tripod mount which was very noticeable using it on a monopod. I
thought at first it was not tightened enough, but I know others have
broken the mounts through overtightening, so I looked carefully and
found that the mount itself actually flexes. Note, don't buy one without
the tripod mount unless you want to try the Oly 300/4.5 mount conversion.
The Tokina is my favorite for ease of use, but I'm always afraid I'll
finally get that perfect, life defining shot and it won't be quite as
good as it could be. Fortunately, the chance of such a shot is slim and
I'll probably not have either one with me if it happens.
If you like the 135/2.8 fairly wide open for portraits, I doubt you
will like either zoom, too sharp for flattering portraiture. The Tamron
with hood might scare subjects into submission, though.
Moose
aemit@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>With all the praise being sung of this lens,
>how do you people rate the similar Tokina 80-200 f2.8 ?
>I have one, but until now have not found an occasion to use it.
>I certainly would not let go my Zuiko 135 f2.8, I like that more than
>the 85 f2 for portraiture, contrary to what most people think of it.
>This is not based on any objective measurement, just my very personal
>impression of these lenses.
>
>
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"
|