Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!nxs@fluke.UUCP (Bruce Golub)
From: nxs@fluke.UUCP (Bruce Golub)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: RE: Dingy Colors -- Bad lenses
Message-ID: <2018@vax4.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Dec-84 13:10:58 EST
Article-I.D.: vax4.2018
Posted: Fri Dec 21 13:10:58 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Dec-84 03:11:18 EST
Sender: joe@fluke.UUCP
Distribution: net
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 26

(This message is in response to the comparisons of Vivitar and Tokina zoom
lenses.)

For the last two years (for some unknown reason) certain Tokina lenses,
espiecally their top-line models, have been simultaniously marketted under
the Vivitar name. 

I have a pet theory that all the Japenese photo companies are really a large
single entity that put on this appearance of seperate companies to fool the
amerikans.

Now for some real news.

I have tried a lot of off-brand name zooms (i.e. Vivitar, Tokina, Kiron,
etc.) in the 70mm-200mm range (in my opinion, the short foacl-lenth lenses
all fall short of certain critical function like sharpness, speed, etc.).
Except for the Kiron (a 80mm-210mm that was priced around $290.00) they are
not worth the relatively small sum of money that they cost. The name-brand
versions are not worth it either, since they typically cost twice as much
and still suffer some of the same faults. The Kiron seemed to be the best
compromise, though I would use a fixed lens whenever possible.

waiting for the technological break-through,

Bruce Golub
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.