The Moose opines again:
>I also have heard/read those who have used both the 28-105 and 35-105 Tamrons
>say
>the 35-105 is definitely optically superior. I think John Lind may be
>one of them. I do know he bought one 35-105, sang its praises and then
>bought another so he could have one on each body.
I won't argue with that. Even without ever having held one in my greedy little
hands, I acknowledge and accept the opinions of those who know a whole lot more
than I ever will -- and John Lind is certainly one of those (and so is Moose, I
suspect). And there are many others whose opinions of the two lenses I have
seen and respect.
But the 28-105/2.8 Tamron is not, I submit, a piece of crap, either. As I
said, it is my choice for the one camera/one lens outfit because of its speed
and range, the combination of which no other OM-fit lens that I know of can
match. And except for the 35-80/2.8 and 35-105/3.5~4.5 Zuiko, I'll put it up
against any of the other Zuiko zooms.
Besides, it got me this:
http://www.tope.nl/tope_show_entry.php?event=17&pic=4
> Walt Wayman wrote:
>
> >I am a genuine and enthusiastic Tamron fan. Out of 31 lenses currently in
> >my
> cupboard that fit the OMs, only 9 are not Zuikos, and 6 of those are Tamrons.
>
> Alas, none of them is the highly-touted 35-105/2.8 Tamron, so I, once again,
> could be wrong. But the more I use it, the more I am convinced there is no
> better zoom lens on this planet than the 35-80/2.8 Zuiko. I have praised the
> 28-105/2.8 Tamron, both for its optical performance and its range, and it is
> the
> lens in my one camera/one lens kit. But except for the 50/2 Zuiko, it is my
> honest opinion that the 35-80/2.8 Zuiko is a better lens than any of the
> Zuiko
> (or Tamron) primes or zooms that fall within that range. Get one if you can.
>
> If you can't, get a Tamron -- either one of them.
> >
> I don't doubt that the 35-80 is a superb lens. I know the Tamron 35-105
> also has a stellar reputation, but have never heard of anyone directly
> doing a test comparison. My guess is that it would be a toss-up in
> regular use, as all that special resolution is usually compromised in
> day to day shooting. I do know the Tamron out performs the Zuiko at
> 105mm. :-) And the extra reach is important to me. I also have
> heard/read those who have used both the 28-105 and 35-105 Tamrons say
> the 35-105 is definitely optically superior. I think John Lind may be
> one of them. I do know he bought one 35-105, sang its praises and then
> bought another so he could have one on each body.
>
> >>But here I reveal my weakness, I just bought Tom's 90/2 even though I have
> >>a
> Tamron SP 90/2.5 >and Kiron 105/2.8. I've just gotta see how that legendary
> Zuiko might work for me. I know Walt >says it is a dead heat in all reaspect
> but
> wide open speed with the Tamron 90/2.8 and not as >sharp as the 100/2, but
> Gary's tests showed the 90 and 100 in a dead heat.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. I find myself, however, using the
> Zuiko more, in spite of the fact the Tamron goes to 1:1 without accessories.
> I
> think it's mostly because the Zuiko is heavy and substantial and solid and
> feels
> like a REAL lens, while the Tamron is so light that it seems insubstantial
> and
> even flimsy. But it's not.
> >
> >Honestly, I can tell little or no difference in photographs taken with these
> two lenses. Any distinction between the two is mostly subjective.
> >
> Well, my Tamron is the early, 49mm thread, 90/2.5, with sturdy metal
> construction, that only goes to 1:2 directly. I have no idea which of
> the 3 Tamrons is the best. I've heard varying opinions, but I'm not
> going to worry about it.
>
> > I made a series of test shots with the two on Provia 100F, but my E-6
> processor sends back plastic-mounted slides without numbers, and I spilled
> them
> all out (I'm sometimes a little clumsy, even when sober), and then I couldn't
> tell which shot was with which lens. Now, that's truly a blind test, and
> that
> was enough for me to decide one lens wasn't better than the other. And that
> includes the bokeh.
> >
> How nice for you that they are a toss-up in performance, since your
> toss-up mixed them up. That way you didn't have to repeat the test.
>
> >Oh, and as a last word, the 50/2 and 100/2 Zuikos are the best of the bunch
> >--
> at least of the bunch I've got.
> >
> I wouldn't MIND a 100/2, but the right one hasn't shown up. I've never
> had much interest in the 50/2. For copy work, the 50/3.5 is splendid and
> the speed means nothing on the copy stand. For general photography, I
> don't use a 50mm prime all that often and the latest version 50/1.4 is
> excellent and adds a little speed.
>
> Moose
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|