Mark;
Prime lens is ALWAYS better than a lens with a doubler attached. Well,
assuming
both lenses are of good quality.
Zuiko 2X = 215 grams; Zuiko 200/5=380 grams Price is probably about
the same .
2X is infinitely more common.
Don't get a third party doubler. It'll be a waste of $$$.
Hope this help.
George
Mark Dickinson wrote:
>
> I have a 100 f2.8 and a 135 f3.5. I'm thinking about expanding my focal
> length options up to about 200. However, I am very keen to keep my OM outfit
> as small and light (and inexpensive!) as possible as this is one of the main
> attractions of the whole system. I'm considering a 200 f5 OR a 2XA, which
> would give me the equivalent of a 200 f5.6 AND a f270 f7 (VERY slow but of
> some use?). I've never seen the 200 f5 but have been interested in the
> recent discussion on the list. So, how do the 200 f5 and 2XA compare in:
> - size and weight
> - price (used) (UK prices of particular interest)
> - availability (used)
> - image quality (2XA with 100 f2.8)?
> In the interim I am considering a cheaper 2x teleconverter as a short term
> solution. Which (cheaper) non-Zuiko converters are best?
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|