On 4/17/2013 1:36 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Moose thus grunted:
>> I don't want one. I have almost never wanted one. It simply doesn't focus
>> close enough to be a general purpose, walk around lens for me. The best
>> 35-(80-105) I've used is the Tamron SP 35-80/2.8-3.8, which I see you have
>> as well. Focuses close and tack sharp.
> I cannot speak to the Tamron lenses, but you and others have praised
> them a lot.
Tamron was (is?) big enough to have different quality/cost lines. The SP line
included some amazingly good lenses. The
35-80/2.8-3.8 might or might not meet your "intangibles" standards, but is
small, light for the all metal era, focuses
directly down to 1:2.5 and is very sharp, with good edge contrast.
> I would certainly agree that it doesn't focus close
> enough. Between that and the rather stilted focal-length range on the
> wide-end and it's just short of perfection. Close, but we'll have to
> just stick with "legendary".
Not "Legen (wait for it) Dary"?
On 4/21/2013 9:25 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> The 35-105, another Zuiko I've never seen let alone used. But it's only one
> of many.
It's a nice lens, perhaps unfairly overshadowed by the 35-80. It looks really
pretty on a black OM body and balances
nicely. OTOH, the 'close-focus' feature is a bust, adding very little
magnification. For that reason I often carried the
above Tamron instead. My endless conundrum in MF days, longer focal range or
closer focus?
Close Up Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|