Gary Schloss wrote:
>The tests I reported on were _field_ tests, i.e. we shot
>real landscape, not artificial standard lens test targets.
Thanks anyway, the outcome of the tests were sooo nice :-)
>>Yesterday I made a hike of 7-8 kilometers with the lens and Manfrotto
>>tripod through hail and sunshine (I regularly do this hike) and the
>>funny thing was, I hardly felt the extra weight.
>Ulf, you're "Da Man"! I was all sweaty and tired after just _reading_
>the above paragraph :-) :-)
I was offered a Canon EOS 400/2.8, old version which has a weight of (hold
on) 6.6 kgs (=14lbs?). I would not have hiked with that! No wonder it was
for sale, makes the Zuiko 350/2.8 seem lightweight, which it probably was in
the mid 80's compared to other brands.
Having said that, there will be times when the Zuiko 300/4.5+1.4X will
accompany me and the Tamron stay at home. The Zuiko may be considered as a
compromise "in case anything shows up", but a very competent one.
Jan Decher wrote:
>>I would really like to know how the current 5.6/400 Novoflex follow focus
>>would compete against the Tamron.
>From what I've heard from other fellow photographers, was that the Novoflex
has very good sharpness even wide-open at center, but very poor at the
edges. This was of not much concern for them as the subjects mostly were
somewhat centered. To me this sounds like 70-80's style, I think
compositions nowadays are by far more adventurous. If you've seen Frans
Lantings little grizzly bear at the righthand corner of a majestic Alaskan
landscape you know what I mean.
For a f/5.6 lens, it's far to heavy IMO.
Ulf Westerberg
< 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 >
|