thanks for the email peoples experiences are allways welcome. I have
sourced a 35-70 3.6 from a list member.
> You comment on the barrel distortion at 35mm. if that is an issue, you
> may be at least somewhat disappointed with any zoom in that range.
its one of the problems but no the main one. The 3.6 rates better than my f4
One of the problems with tests is that they give little or no idea about
likely sample varience.
I agree this is a worry.
Your 35-70/4 sounds worse than has been anecdotally reported by other
members and relatively worse than its test looks relative to the other mid
range zooms.
this is certainly possible, or I am being too fussy. But I use 35-70 range
a lot so it is worth while getting the best lens I can for that range.
whereas I don't use the big tamron 60-300 enough to justify spening much
money in that range.
>
> Like Tom, my favorite 35-70 is the 3.5-4.5. but is plenty sharp and is
light, tiny, focuses fairly close where size and weight matter. Among
the other reasonably priced Zuikos,
size, weight and focusing distance are not issues for me clarify and
contrast are.
> I think the 35-70/3.6 and the 35-105 are probably the best performing
> lenses. Given your problem with flare, the f3.6 is unique with its self
> compensating hood.
This seems to be the general conclusion hense my sleection of the 3.6
> There are some big physical differences between these lens that might
> also be significant to you:
>
> Zuiko Zuiko Zuiko Zuiko Tamron SP
> f3.5-4.5 f2.8 f3.6 f4 f2.8
> 35-70 35-80 35-70 35-70 35-105
> Length Min 51 99 74 71 98
> Diameter 62 69 67 69 76
> Weight 190 650 400 385 650
> Filter size 49mm 62mm 55mm 55mm 67mm
> Close focus 0.45m 0.6m 0.8m 0.75m 1.0m
> Max. Macro 1:6 1:8.6 1:10.4 1:10 1:7.3
interesting table so atleast the 35-70 f3.6 will fit into my aluminium
camera case!
Thanks for the email
James
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|