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.