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 of the MTF chart?
Nov 17, 2009 at 09:39 AM
Previous versions of cogitech's message #7786068 « The Tamron SP 17/3.5 Thread »
