Hi all,
> From: usher99@xxxxxxx
> Yep, I remember just before joining the list checking on opinions on the
> Tam 28-105 as it was sold NIB at B&H --not sure that is still the case. I
> found the John Lind "door stop" comment (later retracted) and later acquired
> the 35-105 from a list member. The poor MTF wide open can make the newer
> version too difficult to focus.
I was tempted by the 28-105/2.8 because of the range... but I tried a
35-105/2.8 and wasn't impressed by its performance wide open, so I forgot
about it.
To me, starting at 28 instead of 35 does make a difference, though.
An old Tamron zoom I find very sharp and with an excellent range is the SP
28-135/4-4.5. But it has two problems: speed is not that great for the
considerable size and weight (maybe it was a voluntarily limited f/2.8
prototype???). And the lens has a noticeable yellow cast on the images...
> Paul (doesn't post much here now) likes his on FF dig and surprisingly
> didn't like the color rendition of the (?King nl range zoom) of the CZ 35-70
> f3.4.
My first incursion in the "dark side" was thru C*ntax, impressed by the
performance of the 35-70/3.4, which is of reasonable size/weight also... but
range is somewhat limited. Never got it, although I own some nice CZ glass
(all primes).
PS: it's fun how threads started by Mr. Brian Swale use parenthesis for ( OM
) instead of the brackets on the usual [OM] which the list software
recognizes...
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|