Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> .......
> At the wide end (which I don't use much) I continue to use my OM mount
> Tokina 17/3.5 and my Zuiko 24/2.8. I also use my OM mount Vivitar
> 90/2.5 macro. I don't have any IS lenses but, for the most part, I'm
> either shooting flash or else on a tripod and a few clicks of the ISO
> dial can usually make up the difference. I've debated buying a Tokina
> 20-35/2.8 AT-X Pro (All AT-X Pro lenses share a common 77mm filter
> size). It has also been discontinued but is still available from
> new/old stocks. I think it performs well on film but I'm concerned
> about how it might perform on a 5D at the wide end and don't know of any
> such test. I could also use some slower, lighter autofocus lenses for
> shooting outdoors in good light but don't know what to get.
I just got a Tamron 17-35/2.8-4. It gets very positive reviews on FM and
Mike Johnson choose it for one of his "best of" columns. It's also in
very short supply in EF mount and those very few that show up selling
used go for new prices - which seems to me to be like god reviews. I
missed the first in stock alert from B&H, gone in the few hours before I
went to buy - jumped on the second one. Not much of compromise in speed
and rather small and light for what it is.
I am at the moment on a little vacation in Morro Bay, CA and first
seriously used the 17-35 yesterday in the Elfin Forest. It is just
perfect for close in areas where you just can't back up for coverage.
Today, I used it for lots of shots of Hearst Castle at San Simeon.
Shooting conditions are very difficult, one can't get to most parts of
the rooms, lighting is wildly mixed and often very low, the tour guide
keeps one moving along and other tour members are forever in the way -
they have no idea of the coverage of the lens, assuming it's like their
P&S. So it's hurry into the next room first or hang back to be last in a
room and shoot quickly. Never even have an opportunity to lie on the
floor to get shots of the ceilings! ;-)
On the other hand, the lens is a dream for the purpose with such wide
coverage and a fast f2.8 at the wide end, which was mostly what I used.
The last time I went there with an SLR, it was an OM and I didn't have a
super WA. I was a very frustrating experience.
I don't have a full report on the lens, but I've been reviewing each
day's shooting in Faststone and done a fair amount of pixel peeping, and
on that basis, it looks very good. Oh, the filter thread happens to be
77 mm.
> Maybe Moose's beloved Tamron 28-300 although that strikes me as just too much
> range in one piece of glass.
Is that a moral-aescetic judgement - no lens should cover that range,
it's just not right? :-)
Or an opinion that a lens with that long a focal length range just can't
be very good?
It just continues to deliver for me.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|