Walt Wayman wrote:
>I suppose one man's Kiron 105/2.8 is another man's Tamron 90/2.8,
>
LOL! I knew that was coming!
>which goes to 1:1 all by its bare-nekkid self, which, dare I say, on an E-1 is
>kinda like a 180/2.8, going all the way to -- could it be?
>
Yeah, sorta. Enlarged to the same print size as film with the same lens,
it should be "like" 2:1. The Kiron on the 300D is 170/2.8.
>Well, maybe not really, but it kinda looks like it. :-)
>
>
Sure, why not?
>The Zuiko 90/2 works great on the E-1, but pardon the heresy when I say the
>Tamron wins in terms of size, weight, and range, while giving up nothing that
>I can see in the optical department.
>
Well, the Kiron is neither smaller nor lighter, being of that old
fashioned construction, but also "goes to 1:1 all by its bare-nekkid
self" and is optically superb.
> They both have nine-blade diaphragms, and even the bokeh is the same:
> splendifferous almost always.
>
>
Oh, darn, I've only got 8 blades. :-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|