Here's a test I did comparing the Zuiko 24/2.8 to a more exotic Tamron
24/2.5 (Adaptall-1 version).
A few words in advance, first of all to those who own the 24/2.8, there's
no great revelations here - it's clearly superior of those two. Second,
while I've learned from some previous rather obvious mistakes and this
test should be moderately accurate, it's still done out of personal
curiosity only and the results should be taken with a healthy amount of
skepticism, as usual.
Here's the comparison:
http://www.softshark.ee/~priit/w24test/
My conclusions:
1.) The Zuiko is contrastier of the two.
2.) In center performance, the Zuiko is better at the open apertures. At
f/4 and f/8 the sharpness looks fairly equal, but as mentioned before the
Z. is contrastier. Both lenses lose some contrast at f/16 as expected.
3.) In corner performance the Z. is obviously better at all apertures. In
fact I think it is really good at f/8 where seems to peak. Also, it's
relatively free of the smearing effect that is common in the edges of
older wide angles, even at wide apertures. The smearing is an issue,
because it can be visible even at small magnification, while the softness
might not. So, good news for the Zuiko. The Tamron keeps improving until
f/16, but never reaches the clarity of the Zuiko.
IIRC a list member, Paul Martinez, used a newer Adaptall-2 version of the
Tamron on a high pixel count camera and thought highly of it. So I think
there could be significant improvement there and the newer version might
offer some more competition to the Zuiko.
priit.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|