Joe,
If I actually do have some "subliminable" prejudice favoring the Tamron, it
could probably be attributed to these factors:
The Tamron produces photographs basically indistinguishable from those made
with the Zuiko, yet weighs less than half what the Zuiko does, so it's easier
to tote. The Tamron costs about a third as much as the Zuiko, so if it gets
dropped off a cliff or into a creek, it's far more easily replaced. The Tamron
goes to 1:1 without any outside help.
On the other hand, the Tamron feels far less like a "real" lens than the Zuiko,
isn't nearly as "nice," and because of the construction of its filter ring, it
won't accept the macro flash ring for the T-28s or the T-8 and T-10. But
that's easily cured by a bit of bin diving in the bargain boxes at any
photographic equipment emporium and getting a pair of 55mm filters, removing
the glass, and screwing them tightly together. And also, it ain't a Zuiko.
But when all is said and done, for reasons too numerous to list, my favorite
and most used macro lens is the 135/4.5 Zuiko. The 90/2 is a keeper, but I'll
fight you over the 135/4.5.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message from "Joseph Ascione" : --------------
>
> Walt,
> You are right the shots are hokey, but your revelation regarding the
> aperture setting may reveal a subconscious resentment toward your zuiko
> addiction. Why would you intentionally skew the results in favor of the
> Tamron? I think this calls for another test but I think the board
> should recommend a new composition. Regards, Joe
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|