Hi Barry,
You wondered:
[snip]
> So, in the name of economy,
> I'm thinking a 200 or 300 prime would be a good lens to fit between
> my 28-80 zoom and my 500 mirror lens.
[snip]
> So I'd like to find a few recommendations and scour the used lens or
> third party lists or a deal on a 200 or 300 in the under $250 range,
> preferably cheaper.
>
> Any suggestions?
I cannot help with the judgment of third party lenses as I have no one. As for
the Zuiko 200/4 and
the Zuiko 300/4.5 I can tell this:
The 200/4 is *much* smaller in size and weight than the 300/4.5. However, I
find the 300/4.5 to be
a little better in performance, which also Gary Reese's results shows in his
Lens Test Part 2.
But even though I personally find the 300/4.5 a little better the ease of use
with the 200/4 is to
its favor I think. I find it easier to just pick up the 200/4 and shoot than
the more heavy
300/4.5. Normally I therefore also try the 200/4 first and only changing into
300/4.5 if I find
the 200 too short.
You say you do landscape and nature. That is what I mostly do too. Because I do
I also discovered
the 200/4 was too short at times, and I bought the 300/4.5. (Funny, now I find
the 300 too short
too...)
The price is to the favor of the 200/4.
If I sum up:
* The 300/4.5 is a better lens in performance in my opinion.
* The 200/4 is smaller in size and lighter in weight and therefore easier to
use.
* The 200/4 is cheaper than the 300/4.5.
* If shooting animals the 200/4 will be too short. Better off with the 300/4.5.
Note: I do think both the 200/4 and the 300/4.5 are good lenses.
Was this to any help?
--
Regards/
Ingemar Uvhagen
Gislaved, Sweden
< 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 >
|