Depending on where you toss the sun in the frame you can get plenty of Zuiko-like flare.
I'm an UWA nut. I've had and used the Nikkor 14/2.8, 14-24/2.8, 18/2.8, 18/4 AI, and 20/4 AI X2, as well as the Tamron 17/3.5, Oly 18/3.5, Oly 21/2, Oly 21/3.5 and CV 20/3.5.
The Oly 18 was great, but I only used it on film. The 18/2.8 Nikkor is sharper in the center than anything else wide-open, but has horrible ghosting and fall-off. The Tamron is a great, great value for under $200. I helped a friend pick up a copy for under $200 just last week. Distortion doesn't matter to me. The handling of the Oly 18/3.5 was my biggest turn off with it. Without the super-rare, ultra-pricey 49-72 'hood' the bulbous front element is completely exposed. Everytime I took it out I couldn't stop worrying about scratching it on something. Every other lens I've listed has a slightly recessed front element.
These are my remaining lenses: 70-210/2.8, 35-80/2.8-3.8, and 24/2.5. Notice the original Adaptall-EOS mounts on the 35-80 and 24mm lenses. There's also the original and rare Sony (Minolta Maxxum) mount to the left of the lenses. In front of the lenses are various adaptall mounts. I also have an original and rare Adaptall-Pentax K, it's just in the closet somewhere. I didn't buy adapters without a lens, but just about every lens came with an adapter! when reselling a lens the buyer often did not want an adapter.
If any of the Tamron 17/3.5's were acceptable for my photography, they would still be here, and I would have plenty of samples - as I do for the Zuiko 18/3.5 and Nikon 20/4 that I was more pleased with. I liked the 24/2.5 and 35-80 enough to even buy them there own custom lens hoods! Instead, the Tamron 17/3.5's were sold. I am not interested in selling the Adaptall-EOS adapters (as I still make good use of them!), but if you are looking for a Sony or Pentax adapter you could always send me a PM
Anden wrote:
I have to say that one thing that bugs me with all these examples is the contrast. Very harsh. If I was convinced that the Tammy is as good (better?) than the Zuiko I would sell my Zuiko and get the Tammy. The cash would do me good. But I am not very impressed by these photos. The ones that are great are not because of the lens but thanks to the skilled photographers.
pdmphoto wrote:
No empirical vs ancedotal about it. I shot both for a few years and know what I found.
So you shot both the Zuiko and multiple samples of the Tamron "for a few years" and never got a keeper from the Tamron? I find this puzzling, to say the least.
Anden wrote:
I have to say that one thing that bugs me with all these examples is the contrast. Very harsh. If I was convinced that the Tammy is as good (better?) than the Zuiko I would sell my Zuiko and get the Tammy. The cash would do me good. But I am not very impressed by these photos. The ones that are great are not because of the lens but thanks to the skilled photographers.
A
So, when a Zeiss lens has high contrast, it is a good thing, but when an inexpensive Tamron has high contrast, it is described as "harsh"?
Ok, let's take a step back. Each lens has it's strong points. (price for the Tamron, for example).
Personally I chose the Oly, but I am an Oly fan, got it at a decent price, and had to see what all the fuss was about. I like it, I kept it.
I have the test posted for Oly, when was the Tamron tested (month and year)? I can find and post it. (sometimes the text of the tests contain more info than just the specs might show).
My current wide-angle fetish is the Mamiya 43mm which should be arriving soon.
At f8 and f11, where I use the Tamron 95% of the time, it is consistent in resolution from centre to corner, and easily bests the Zuiko with respect to corner resolution and corner contrast at these apertures. Also notice the extreme vignetting of the Zuiko as compared to the Tamron. Also keep in mind the Tamron's focal length advantage. Chop it down to 18mm and it is only that much stronger.
The Zuiko is not a POS, of course, and I have seen plenty of excellent images taken with that lens. It is just not worth 5x as much money to me (and several others, it seems). Hence, the Tamron 17/3.5 thread. Is this lens for everyone? Maybe not, but why hang around this thread if you don't like the lens?
In the meantime, I'll continue to visit the OM 18/3.5 thread and view/comment on the lovely photos, rather than pollute the thread with disparaging comments about the lens.
BTW, the Tamron is exactly 20g heavier than the Zuiko, the Tamron has a diameter and length of 70mm x 45mm, whereas the Zuiko has a diameter and length of 75mm x 43mm. I consider the Tamron's dedicated petal-type hood with integrated filter threads to be a better hood/filter solution than the Zuiko's.
Anden wrote:
I have to say that one thing that bugs me with all these examples is the contrast. Very harsh. If I was convinced that the Tammy is as good (better?) than the Zuiko I would sell my Zuiko and get the Tammy. The cash would do me good. But I am not very impressed by these photos. The ones that are great are not because of the lens but thanks to the skilled photographers.
A
Contrast, really? I might be guilty of pushing it PP, (looking at it now, I certainly went too far on the shot of the building ) but I wouldn't say the lens has harsh contrast.
I paid just over $200 for a mint lens, case, caps, Nikon mount, and hood. (And even a case for the hood.) That wouldn't buy me a look at the OM 18/3.5 these days.
Oh, Ed, the lens was first marketed in 1979, and production ended in 1984, so that might narrow down your search for the article a bit. Maybe it is reasonable to assume they tested it within a year of first hitting the shelves?
I don't know when the MP test was published either - there is no date shown on it, as you can all see for yourselves by putting yz3xpzb after the usual tinyurl dot com prefix
It was reviewed alongside the equally revered 90/2.5
Makten wrote:
Looks alot better than my Tokina 17/3.5 RMC in the corners, but the Tokina is just as sharp in the middle. I think I'll have to disassemble it (again), because it is slightly decentered. That could also be the cause of the inferior corner sharpness.
I wonder if the Tokina, Vivitar and the Tamron are identical optically?
Piers Hemy wrote:
I don't know when the MP test was published either - there is no date shown on it, as you can all see for yourselves by putting yz3xpzb after the usual tinyurl dot com prefix
It was reviewed alongside the equally revered 90/2.5
I have no hands on experience with the tammy. I based my opinion on the examples in this thread as I said. Harsh contrast is not the same as high contrast in my book. It is hard to explain but it is a question of graduation. I might have to get me a copy of the other lens to try it myself. Maybe one or two other contributors to this thread should as well... We are talking about two great lenses here. I have made my choice and so has others in this thread. It is a hard quest to convice a beliver...
Anden wrote:
I might have to get me a copy of the other lens to try it myself. Maybe one or two other contributors to this thread should as well...
A
I would buy the Zuiko and compare them myself, as I have often said I would like to, but I simply cannot afford it, unfortunately. On the other hand, I am very happy with the Tamron, and the numbers above do not give me any reason to go into debt just to try the Zuiko.
cogitech wrote:
I would buy the Zuiko and compare them myself, as I have often said I would like to, but I simply cannot afford it, unfortunately. On the other hand, I am very happy with the Tamron, and the numbers above do not give me any reason to go into debt just to try the Zuiko.
For me, this is the most important thing, to have the best IQ/$ ratio, and be really happy with the results. That's why I run from things like, say, CV 125/2.5
Even considering my Zuiko addiction (which is semi-irrational as everybody knows) I think money is made to be well invested. 'Well' is totally personal and I tend to respect every position. I, as a Zuiko boy and all, dislike the 18/3.5 strong vignetting, for instance. And I simply love my Vivitar copy (was Ed's) for its good IQ and superb price and size. Maybe my idea of IQ is way subpar... OTOH nowadays I think both can be called trash when compared to Canon TS-E 17mm...
As anyone can see with their own eyes, the lens performs exactly as one might guess it would after seeing the Modern Photo test results posted earlier.
cogitech wrote:
Yes, I will do that tonight if I have time. My server crashed a while back and I haven't yet uploaded all the missing photos.
Thanks for your contributions to the thread. Nice shots!
