On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:31:36 +0100, Ingemar Uvhagen wrote:
>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?
Absolutely!
Is the 200/4 relatively easy to shoot sans tripod? My 80-200 is heavy
enough that I no longer attempt to use it unless I can mount it on a
tripod (I just got a monopod and haven't tried it yet). If the 200
was light enough to shoot hand held, it would be a huge advantage.
BBB
-
B.B. Bean - Have horn, will travel
bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peach Orchard, MO
http://www.beancotton.com/bbbean.shtml
< 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 >
|