Hi, sorry for my delayed response.
The following has been said on this thread:
> 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."
I read this thread, it's full of everything, from worthwhile replys to pure
bull&%¤. Guess its' too late to try to put things right now.
>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?
That would have been me with my Tamron 400/4 which becomes a 560/5.6 or
800/8 with converters. This lens is of course a beast compared to the
300/4.5 or 400/6.3, probably not the lens one would purchase without any
prior experience with long teles, prices are usually around 1400 US$.
What matters much, much more when using long teles is proper technique. An
image with a poor tele and proper technique will be 10 times sharper and
better than a picture with a super-duper Canon (best long teles today) and
poor technique. And it takes praktice to achieve that technique.
Kerry, buy the lens you afford, and PRACTICE before you set out on that
maybe once-in-a-lifetime safari. This is much more important than whatever
lens you may choose. IMO you could go for the Sigma 400/5.6 APO, I've said
it before, I don't at all share Mattias views that this is a sloppy lens,
with good technique it will give you "publishable" results. (Hey, I didn't
say that, George Lepp did!). There are some shots at the Oly Gallery me
using this lens, they're pretty representative dispite being digitalized.
>And finally I was made an offer (by an owner of a photoshop in Amsterdam) I
>fortunately could refuse: a 350mm/F2.8 Black for Hfl. 5000,- (US$2500).
Very
>good price, I think. But no. This lens weighs 4 kilo. My Tamron 300/2.8
>"only" weighs 2.5 kilo - and can still be hand-held. Maybe these 4 kilo
>Super Zuiks are superiour, but their weight reduces the comfort in handling
>too much, I think.
Exactly my words. But you have to agree that it (the 350) would make a great
display along with your china? :-)
> I would never consider shooting a 400 much less a 500mm without a rock
solid support. One
>of the best supports for the 300mm, I have used, is a Shoulder Stock. But,
I
>do not use this with a 400mm.
Maybe you should try it. It took me one years practice and God knows how
many shots to get an acceptable (OK I'm a slooow learner) to get an
acceptable image held-hand at 400mm, but once I had done it, the barrier was
so to say broken. Of course if I wan't to be certain in getting a sharpie I
have to use a tripod.
Best tele regards
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 >
|