Based on my experience with Tamron, I'd bet the Oly was correct and
the Tamron 'short'. This is quite common with their zooms. They
claim a particular close focusing distance but when you try to achieve
it at maximum zoom the focal length gets shorter and shorter. I
noticed it with a 28~200 that I owned for a very short while and have
read of other instances as well.
FWIW/ScottGee1
On 10/18/05, Walt Wayman <hiwayman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm the heretic who shot a roll of test film with the 90/2 Zuiko and the
> 90/2.8 Tamron and concluded that one was no better than the other, except
> that the Zuiko was a stop faster and the Tamron went to 1:1 without the need
> for extension tubes. Otherwise, the Provia 100F slides were all but
> identical, except, I also noted, although both claimed to be 90mm, one -- I
> forget which now -- was obviously a little "longer" than the other'n.
>
> BUT -- big "but" too -- now that I've got an E-1, I find the 90/2 Zuiko to be
> a killer lens, the equivalent of a 180/2 macro, essentially doing the 1:1
> thing because of the 2X factor. For some reason, with film, I can't tell it
> and the Tamron apart, but the Zuiko just seems to work way more better with
> the E-1 -- a touch of Zuikomagic maybe.
>
> I've found that with the E-1 my most-used "old" Zuikos are the 50/2, 90/2,
> 100/2, and 180/2.8, giving me, of course, 100/2 and 180/2 macros, 200/2 and
> 360/2.8 teles. Of course, there's also the 80-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 Tamrons.
> And since the sky is clear and the moon looks like it's about full now, I may
> have to dig out the 1250/10 Celestron tonight. :-)
>
> --
> "Anything more than 500 yards from
> the car just isn't photogenic." --
> Edward Weston
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > I went through that. I've had a nice 85/2 for some time, but kept
> > feeling I was missing something by not having the magical 90/2. Perhaps
> > you know that zuikoholic "itch"? So I finally found a nice one at a
> > reasonable price from a list member.
> >
> > What can I say? I was simply underwhelmed. Perfectly fine lens, but no
> > better than the 85/2 for general use, and bigger, heavier and with the
> > aperture ring in the "wrong", place. In macro use, where it should
> > shine, given that its part of the name, I don't think it's as good as a
> > tamron SP 90/2.5 or the Kiron 105/2.8.
> >
> > I know many list members swear by the 90/2, and I'm happy for them.
> > There is a minority who find it less than spectacular.
> >
> > As a zuikoholic and with some of Walt's tendency to keep every bit I
> > ever buy, it was a hard desision to send it on, but I'll have to say I
> > don't miss it. The 85/2 is just so much more "OM", compact, light and an
> > excellent lens. For macro, the Kiron is better and goes directly to 1:1
> > without extension tubes. I'd buy the Kiron or the Viv or Tamron 90/2.8
> > lenses that also go to 1:1 before the 90/2 for macro.
> >
> > Moose
> >
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|