At 08:43 AM 9/26/04, Walt Wayman wrote:
>I've no interest in going round and round on this, but anyhoo...
>
>My experience, and even Gary's test data, refute much of John's hyperbolic
>rant regarding the 28-105/2.8 Tamron. While it certainly has its
>shortcomings, to say it should only be used as a doorstop is a bit much.
The "doorstop" charactarization of the Tamron 28-105 is too severe . . .
I officially retract it with further discussion about it and the fast
35-105 it replaced.
Regarding a single "walk-around" when a bag of primes cannot be used:
In general, a 35-105 3X or 28-105 4X offers considerably more flexibility
compared to lesser focal length ranges. I use the Zuiko 35-105/3.5~4.5 for
this frequently . . . mostly outdoors and under brighter conditions indoors
that can tolerate its slower speed. The Zuiko's "close-focus" feature
enhances its utility to me; I've used it enough to appreciate its
presence. However, the Zuiko's bokeh isn't as good under some conditions
if pinpoint specular highlights are out of focus. How much the greater
focal length range is valued depends on how much having more at the long
end is desired.
To be fair:
The older 35-105/2.8 has a mechanical design shortcoming compared to the
newer 28-105/2.8: greater susceptibility to zoom creep. It hasn't been a
problem with how I handle it in a flash bracket during a wedding. Carrying
one over the shoulder nose-down for casual walk-around use over an entire
day might be a different matter. Depends on how a 35mm SLR with a
relatively large, heavy lens on it is carried. That's the possible
downside of Tamron's older 35-105/2.8; enough folks must have noted this
that it is substantially improved on the current 28-105.
My usual application for a fast constant aperture zoom is different than
yours . . . and my comparison of the 28-105 with the 35-105 is based on how
I use them. The need for speed is primarily during two portions of a
wedding shoot:
(a) wide open during a ceremony [no flash] using Press 1600, and
(b) the latter half of the reception with dim ambient lighting.
The first needs strong MTF performance wide open with minimal
barrel/pincushion distortion of an architectural background that usually
has many prominent vertical lines, all of which are supposed to be
straight. Mediocrity with either shows under those conditions. The
second, although I normally use f/5.6 with flash, needs a bright viewfinder
and excellent MTF looking through the wide open lens to focus
quickly. Gary Reese mentions this in his comments about the 28-105. For
photographs with prominent straight lines that the brain expects to find
straight (e.g. man-made structures), modest barrel and pincushion can be
very noticeable. For photographs without prominent rectilinear shapes, it
can often be hard to find.
A good friend uses a pair of the Tamron 28-105's on his Nik*n FM2n and FE2
bodies for weddings. The FE2 in particular isn't that much different from
using an OM except for its advance lever poking me in the face (must be
pulled out to fire the shutter; pushed in locks it). I've shot through one
or the other of his pair on a few occasions when I worked some gigs with
him, and have seen thousands of his proofs. Gary Reese's observation
aligns with mine with a caveat: it is harder to focus through . . . under
low light. The 28-105/2.8 does quite well with MTF in its
mid-apertures. Focusing through it greatly improves as ambient light
increases to the level of most indoor lighting for living and working. The
two lenses are comparable in their middle apertures and in their middle
focal length ranges.
If the 28-105 didn't have its high price point (B&H: $950) I wouldn't be as
critical about it. My expectations are high for expensive fast glass at
the top of a product line. I'm disappointed Tamron's replacement for their
35-105 that extended focal length coverage on the short end:
(a) gave up strong, even MTF performance across its aperture range, and
(b) resulted in greater barrel/pincushion at the ends of its focal length
range.
They did improve zoom creep risk. However, the lion's share of the MTF
trade-off is at its wide open end where I need it to be strong. The
28-105/2.8 Achilles heel is planted right where I don't want it to be.
If your 28-105/2.8 is doing all you need it to for your application of it,
use it and revel in what you achieve with it. For those that might
contemplate the fast 28-105, do so knowing its shortcomings. For those
that might contemplate the older fast 35-105, do so knowing about its
shortcoming (greater potential for zoom creep). No lens is perfect; it's a
matter of where you need the strengths and what you can tolerate in its
weaknesses.
In the future I promise to (try to) consider whether or not my remarks
might be slanted by how I employ a particular lens or other piece of hardware.
-- John Lind
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|