Kerry;
KFrohling@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> I found the following comment in the Nature Photography section of photo.net,
> Bob Atkins runs the Nature Photography areas and offers this opinion of the OM
> system:
>
> "I know Olympus made some good macro optics for example, and OM1 bodies are
> not too expensive. The trouble with Olympus is that they never made good,
> cheap, long telephotos."
Good, cheap: Doesn't this seem like an oxymoron?
Olympus makes some world class telephotos (350/2.8, 250/2, 180/2) but
they're expensive. They also make some really good telephotos (600/6.5,
400/6.3, 300/4.5) for less money.
That said, the selection of big Zuiko glass is definitely limited
compared to the NCMP guys. And there are more modern 300/4.5 EDIF for
example lenses for Nikon and Canon. But for more $$ than the Zuiko.
Probably the best bang for the buck would be either a used 300/4.5 PLUS
a used 1.4x OR a used 500/8 mirror. The Zuiko mirror was one of the
best mirror lenses.
All that said, you can certainly get some cheap telephotos, Sigma and
Tokina come immediately to mind, but they probably won't be as 'good'.
Lastly, seems some one on the list recently bought a relatively
inexpensive 500/4 or 500/5.6 or something that looked to be a good
performer. I think it may have been a Tamron. Can that person add
anything?
George
>
> Is this generally thought to be a correct statement? Should we look elsewhere
> for reasonably priced long lenses? What are the alternatives?
>
> Cheers,
> Kerry Frohling
> Fullerton, CA, USA
>
> < 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 >
|