Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Yes, the ATX Pro line lenses are built like tanks. All metal
> construction. It's a shame to see that stuff apparently dwindling away.
>
Maybe the penny has dropped for many other people , as it has for me,
that they dont' have to carry around a ton 'o glass and metal, and sales
wouldn't support continued manufacture.
I suspect that these lenses were made in batches, not continuously. And
it is entirely possible that, like with the OM-4ti, they have been
selling off remaining stock for some time.
Much as I like the feel of quality and solidity of my old all metal
lenses, I can't say I like carrying them around. Changes in technology
have always meant changes in materials and manufacturing techniques.
Someone with an engineering background posted here about brass vs.
engineered plastics some time ago. As I recall, he said precision of
manufacture was as good or better with plastic and it was less affected
by temperature.
He also said resistance to trauma was different in ways that were hard
to compare. Plastic will often simply deform and return to shape under
impact/stress that will permanently deform brass, but brass may survive
greater impacts in repairable condition where plastic will shatter. And
I suppose that the impact on a plastic lens structure will often be less
from a similar mishap than on brass because the plastic lens weights less.
In any case, I think it unlikely that I will buy an all metal AF lens in
the future as long as there is an otherwise similar spec lightweight
available.
I'd sure hate to see Tokina go away, many of my favorite lenses have
been, and still are, for MF, Tokinas. With luck, they are back at work
reformulating the mechanical parts of these classics for the
contemporary marketplace and they will return.
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> AG Schnozz wrote:
>
>
>> Chuck, I don't know. I lost interest in Tokina when they
>> dropped the OM mount and then again when I decided to stay with
>> Olympus. It's a shame too, since they had a wide-angle zoom to
>> kill for. That one lens almost drove me to Nikon.
>>
>> Tamron has been quite aggressive in their product placement, but
>> most of their stuff feels so cheesy to me.
>>
That was my feeling when I got my first plastic bodied lens, a Viv S1
17-35. But it's been a fine lens and shows absolutely no signs of wear
or distress from the admittedly modest use to which I have put it. I
haven't used it all that much, but it has traveled quite a bit -
standing by.
I think it's one of those prejudices one picks up based on facts that
change faster than the emotional component of one's value judgment.
Optically, I think at least some of the new, plastic, Tamrons are really
excellent. In my side-by-side tests, the Tamron 90/2.8 Di is a better
lens than their old 90/2.5, the famous Kiron 105/2.8 and, beyond 1:2,
the Zuiko 50/3.5. And at 1:2, it's pretty much in a tie with the 50/3.5.
And boy is it light compared to the Kiron, the only other one I have
that doesn't need accessories to go past 1:2.
Maybe I got a special one, but I continue to be impressed by the Tamron
28-300 Di. Light, but with a nice, smooth zoom action and no wiggle/slop
even extended out for 300 mm. And it's sharp. No, it doesn't feel like
the Kiron 28-210, but is it worse, or just different? I will admit,
though, that the Kiron could probably be used as a weapon, then go back
to photography, and the Tamron would not stand up to that test.
For flimsy feeling, the Can*n 50/1.8 is a champ. weighs nothing (and
light in the $s, too) and feels like a nice rap with a knuckle will make
it fall to pieces - but it doesn't. But put it on the camera and it
focuses quickly and accurately and takes nice, sharp pics.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|