Chuck wrote:
> This could be an attractive alternative to the Tokina 20-35 given
> that it goes down to 17mm and also uses 77mm filters. It also
> doesn't hurt that it's $50 cheaper than the Tokina.
Personally, I'd stick with just the one brand of lens. There are
coloring and bokeh nuances that favor a single lens family. Also,
other things like focus-ring direction and zoom-ring locations.
It's been a long time since I looked at the Tokina, so I'm not
totally sure that it was the 20-35, but I believe it was. The view
through the finder was mind-boggling. The image was 3D in appearance
and I felt like I could step right into it. It was a sensation I've
never experienced before or since in a camera. The image "snapped"
when it went into focus.
I'll admit, I am partial to Tokina over Tamron. To me, the Tamrons
(except for the 300/2.8) feel plasticy and the focus rings aren't in
the right position. But that's just me and my A.R. ways.
AG
____________________________________________________________________________________Be
a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|