tamron 90/2.8 for landscapes???

dane skye , Sep 07, 2001; 11:31 a.m.

I was considering a new lens in the 100mm range for landscape work. I shoot Olympus OM and have the Zuilo 100/2.8. It is ok, but I think shots could be a little sharper. I am considering either the Zuiko 100/2 or the Tamron 90/2.8 Macro in an adaptall mount.

I know the Zuiko is rated tack sharp but the Tamron is $300 cheaper. How good is it? For landscapes, fall color shots, and the occasional foray into macro (only small percentage of my shots)is this a good buy?

how sharp is it??

thanks for any info!!

Responses

P. Neil Ralley , Sep 07, 2001; 02:42 p.m.

FWIW I think that the Tamron is a great lens. It also gets quite a good rating on photodo.com.

Denise Duhamel , Sep 07, 2001; 06:34 p.m.

I purchased the Tamron 90mm/2.8 a couple of months ago. I LOVE this lens - very sharp images. Up until this purchase, I used Minolta lenses exclusively. I highly recommend it - and besides, it got great reviews. I haven't used mine for landscapes though - just macro. If you want my .02 worth - I say go for the Tamron.

dane skye , Sep 09, 2001; 11:12 a.m.

Thanks for the input. After some gut wrenching thought, I went with the Zuiko. A little more but it is one of the legendary ones from Oly.

dane skye , Sep 18, 2001; 08:11 a.m.

I got the lens (the Zuiko 100/2) in monday. The shipping was delayed by the situation last week.

This is one awesome lens! The glass looks beautiful, bright view through it and a test roll was razor sharp!

Something else I like about it, and all Zuikos for that matter, is this is a solid piece of quality built equipment. It has some heft, but compared to the flimsey plastic stuff that has overtaken most of the 35mm industry, is a welcome weight.

Notify me of Responses