I really don't think John and I are all that far apart. The 28-105/2.8 Tamron
is my normal lens when I'm toting only one body and one lens, which happens at
only those times when I go abroad with no real photographic intent. For
instance, if I go out to run some errands, like to the hardware store, the drug
store, the post office, the liquor store, and maybe a quick stop at the Chicken
Ranch, I'll grab an OM-something-or-other loaded with a film appropriate for
the prevailing lighting conditions, stick on the big Tamron, hang the outfit by
the strap from the head rest on the passenger seat and be on my way. Then if I
come upon something photogenic, I'm fairly well prepared to fire off a shot or
two.
On the other hand, if I leave the house with the intention to go "take some
pictures," more likely than not the Tamron stays home, being replaced by, at a
minimum, a 19-35/3.5~4.5 Phoenix, 35-80/2.8 Zuiko, and 80-200/2.8 Tamron. If
I'm really serious about "taking some pictures," rest assured there'll also be
a bag of primes, including for sure the 21/2 Zuiko, 50/2 Zuiko, 100/2 Zuiko,
and the 135/4.5 Zuiko macro with 65-116 auto tube. There'll probably be a lot
of other stuff too, depending on the circumstances, but that's about the bare
minimum for those times I leave home with premeditated photogaphy in mind.
Walt, not as disagreeable as I may appear
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message from "John A. Lind" : --------------
> Walt and I have differing opines about the 28-105/2.8 Tamron . . . and I
> believe it's based on the different conditions under which we use lenses in
> this class.
>
> If you're looking for a slightly smaller, somewhat lighter and less
> expensive one . . . can afford to give up a little at the short end . . .
> and can tolerate a "zoom creep" risk . . . its predecessor is the
> 35-105/2.8 Adaptall-2 which has excellent optical performance
> reviews. That it's an older model and less costly [used] is an added bonus
> . . . I have a pair of them and they have lived up to the reviews I found &
> read before buying them.
>
> For relatively light travel I use three lenses:
> 24/2 Zuiko
> 35-105/3.5~4.5 Zuiko or 35-105/2.8 Tamron, and
> 135/2.8 Zuiko or 85-200/2.8 Tamron
>
> Whether it's the Tamrons or the Zuikos depends on how light . . . both in
> weight and in ambient . . . and how much I might need more focal length at
> the long end. 4X focal length range is very attractive (if one uses it) by
> eliminating the need for the 24mm I listed (one of the reasons Walt likes
> it ??). Nik*n made fast lenses in this class . . . don't recall of Can*n
> did or not (with their FD system) . . . and do wish that Olympus had made
> one. The 35-80/2.8 isn't quite long enough for me. Olympus likely never
> made a zoom in this class faster than the 35-105/3.5~4.5 to keep size and
> weight down . . . which was a characteristic that differentiated Olympus
> from the others and therefore remained a very important design goal
> (sometimes at the expense of lens speed). If you don't need the lens
> speed, the Zuiko is also optically excellent and contrasty . . . the latter
> a welcome surprise to me given the number of elements it has.
>
> -- John Lind
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|