Joel;
And the 100-200/5 ! Gotta thin this collection out.
As for choosing: the 85-250, I've had for only a year or two, so it's
'new' to me and so it's been in my main pack so I can use it a lot. I'm
still having fun with it. I especially like the 250 long end.
The 65-200 I've had for 15 years and I've taken a few of my best images
with it. And it has a pretty decent macro at 200mm. Loads of working
distance, but I think only 1:7 ratio, I'm not sure. Lately, I've
relegated it to my 'small' pack so I can use it with one set of gear,
the 85-250 with the other.
The 100-200 gets the least use, but it is capable of good images and it
mates with my 2X, giving a 200-400/10 ! Can u say tripod? How about ASA
800? It may see some use as a backpacking lens if I keep it.
I hope this explains thing in some way.
George
Joel Wilcox wrote:
>
> At 04:27 PM 7/24/1999 -0700, George you wrote in part:
> >The 85-250 and 65-200 are also great lenses, while the 100-200 is good ,
> >but not quite as good as the others.
>
> George,
>
> You have both the 85-250 and 65-200, no? What situations determine for you
> the use of one instead of the other? Thanks.
>
> Joel Wilcox
> Iowa City, Iowa 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 >
|