cogitech wrote:
If the Vivitar's serial begins with 37, then it is a Tokina.
The Tokina is 11 elements in 9 groups, whereas the Tamron is 12 elements in 10 groups.
Yes, Vivitar's starting with the numerals 37, were made by Tokina. However, most Tokina lenses are vastly different than Vivitars in design. Most, not all.
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.
Maybe someone on your side of the pool can lend you one? The Zuiko is quite costly but well worth the money. If the Tammy is as good as you guys claim it might be the best value WA out there. Off to evilbay...
Yes, I have shown you in your two previous "I love the Tamron 17/3.5" threads. It's rather tiresome...
If you would stop bringing up how it is as good as the Zuiko 18/3.5, I wouldn't bother even replying.
I get the feeling you have a few to unload
I don't have any of either, so I have no bias.
cogitech wrote:
You've just never been able to explain why Modern Photography's multiple-sample tests of these lenses show the Tamron to be the superior lens in more ways than one, yet you maintain that it is not even close. I choose to believe Modern Photography's evaluation, and my experience with two samples of the Tamron have led me to that conclusion. Your conclusions do not coincide in the least. So, you tell me; why does this smell fishy?
That could have been with an early K.Zuiko 18mm lens, which isn't the same as the latest. Regardless, I have shot multiple copies of each and my experience is much more important, to me, than any single "review" test by a rag.
I have at least owned multpile copies of the lens I am saying doesn't meet my standard. How many copies of the Zuiko 18/3.5 (with a quality adaptere like Kindai) have you actually tried
Try telling Hranar (who has posted all those beautful Zuiko 18/3.5 shots), that he culd have got the same result with a $200 Taron 17/3.5.
And what about the old test, possibly before your time, where it was shown to have better corner performance than the CZ 18/3.5?
cogitech wrote:
Ed, I don't know when the test was done, but here are the results:
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....Show more →
Hmmm... just saw that "less than 1%" pincushion distion figure for the Tamron 17/3.5. That should give the reader some idea about the valididty of the test. In distortion, there is no contest between the two.
cogitech wrote:
Somehow I missed these shots before. Very nice, especially the first one!
Thank you, I like 'em too! I love wide angle landscape shots.
aoluain wrote:
Personally I would be opting for the Tamron at a quarter of the money but not quarter of the quality, far from it.
value V's quality and to me the Tamron has both, the Zuiko has only the quality not the value.
I fully agree. The price difference is just too high.
And there are more things than quality alone:
1) I like the form factor of the Tamron more, with respect to front lens design. It's easy to hold filters in front of, it and also a filter holder for Cokin-P and similar systems is easily self-made.
2) Since we're speaking about UWA lenses: the Tammy is wider
pdmphoto wrote:
That could have been with an early K.Zuiko 18mm lens, which isn't the same as the latest. Regardless, I have shot multiple copies of each and my experience is much more important, to me, than any single "review" test by a rag.
No. They tested the Zuiko MC 18/3.5 Auto-W. I agree that your experience should be more important to you, but I do not agree that your opinion of these lenses should outweigh an empirical, controlled test of the lenses and/or my experience with the Tamron.
I have at least owned multpile copies of the lens I am saying doesn't meet my standard. How many copies of the Zuiko 18/3.5 (with a quality adaptere like Kindai) have you actually tried
None. I've never claimed to have direct experience with the lens. On the other hand, I have never seen anyone post corner crops from the Zuiko. I find this curious. Based on Modern Photo's evaluation of both lenses, and my experience with the Tamron, what I am claiming is that the Tamron appears to be at least as good with respect to most aspects of lens performance. I am also claiming that your statement that the Tamron "is not even close" is hyperbole. As someone else said, it is more a matter of "splitting hairs" when comparing these two lenses. This makes the Tamron, by far, the true value winner.
Try telling Hranar (who has posted all those beautful Zuiko 18/3.5 shots), that he culd have got the same result with a $200 Taron 17/3.5.
He could have, and I have little doubt that he would have any issue confirming that. The impact of his images has very little to do with what brand of lens he uses.
And what about the old test, possibly before your time, where it was shown to have better corner performance than the CZ 18/3.5?
What about it? For all I know, the CZ 18/3.5 had abysmal corner performance. Can you link to the test or the MTF chart?
Was there a comparsion test done of the Tokina RMC 17mmF3.5 AF versus the Tamron SP 17mm? I recall a test of these two lenses, but couldn't find the final results.
I use the Tokina RMC 17mm in AF on my Nikon F90s and love the smaller size and compactness over the Nikon 15mm.
As for the Tamron SP 17mm, I have the last version made that has a smooth finish. Came with the lenshood, which I discovered later on, was bent and unusable. IS there any other solution for a lenshood that i could use? I haven't had a chance to use it because of the lenshood issue. I do have the Nikon and Contax CY SP-II mounts.
I posted some corner crops in my 18 thread just when I got the lens.
I think a controlled test is what we need here. Will see what I can do this weekend.
Anden wrote:
I posted some corner crops in my 18 thread just when I got the lens.
I think a controlled test is what we need here. Will see what I can do this weekend.
Oh, yes, I had forgotten about those. I think they look OK, but the high ISO makes it difficult to draw any conclusions. It certainly seems to me that the Tamron samples on page one of this thread easily stand up to the Zuiko samples. But like I said, I think the Zuiko deserves to be tested outside at low ISO.
Maybe I'll have a chance to take the Tamron out on the weekend as well. It has been a while.
Cheap, medium res scans from one hour photo machine. But when glassing the negs and slides (10x loupe & light table) they are quite sharp. I'm totally satisfied with the performance of the Tammy SP 17 f/3.5 I have much better subject matter, but haven't scanned them yet.
