The Tamron seems bigger and heavier than the Tokina. When you try to fit it in
a bag, the difference seems noticeable but when it's on the camera the
difference doesn't seem that noticeable. The Tokina has a clever tripod mount
that is tiny, and when pressing down with your hand on the lens, works well.
The Tamron mount is often missing but can be replaced by an Olympus tripod
mount. My personal but vague impression(I haven't compared them side by side)
is that the Tamron is slightly sharper.
If size is a concern, consider the Tokina. The Tamron probably sells for
slightly more in part because it can be adapted to almost any camera. If you
have Zuikos that you'll try to hang on to forever, the added flexibility of the
Tamron mount probably isn't important since you'll make sure your Zuikos will
mount on any camera you get.
I could probably dig up some shots taken with each lens but they wouldn't be
comparable because they were taken on different days (different amounts of SF
Bay haze/fog). I could post a digital photo of the lenses side by side if it
would help.
-jeff
-------------- Original message from Joel Wilcox <jfwilcox@xxxxxxxxx>:
--------------
>
>
> What do you like about it in comparison to the Tamron?
>
> Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|