NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/19/2007 12:34:52 PM Central Standard Time,
> zuikoholic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> Actually, if Michael is looking for a lightweight lens for
> backpacking/hiking, and can live with a bit slower & shorter lens at the
> long end the 35-70 3.5-4.5 is a great alternative - fairly readily
> available,
>
Yes, a great little lens.
And not for Michael, who prefers Zuikos, but I'd be pretty likely to
take the Tamron 35-80/2.8-3.8.
- Slightly greater reach.
- Slightly faster. 2/3 stop - 3/4 stop.
- A slightly better lens. As Paul points out, competitive with the
35-80/2.8 up to 65 mm.
- Much better close-up/macro capability. The Zuiko goes to 1:6 and the
Tammy to 1:2.5. Smallest field width for the Zuiko is 217 mm (8.5"). For
the Tammy, 90 mm (3.5").
Yes, it's bigger and heavier, but not really big and heavy,, and I've
always liked the Zuiko, but for only one lens to carry out in nature, I
think I'd choose the Tammy nine times out of ten.
I've never had the 35-80/2.8. I know how fabulous it must be, but I just
don't see me carrying it. If I'm going bigger and heavier, the Tammy
35-105/2.8 comes along. It's that "tele" eye. :-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|