I have them both, and they are apples and oranges, from my perspective. The
65-200/4 is a great lens. One-touch, nice wide range, reasonably fast, but
just flat huge compared to the 75-150. I realize huge in OM perspectives is
relative, as the 65-200 isn't really that large, but the 75-150 is so small
and light.
I just find them different, and very complimentary.
Tom
> Hi Jordan:
>
> Welcome to the list.
>
> << I think I will like the 75-150 f:4 Zuiko. (I miss my teles a lot)
> Tell me about this lens... I read that it's compact and reasonably
> light, but what about the quality? Should I go for the 100 f:2.8
> instead? What about this one? >>
>
> Feel free to peruse my lens tests at:
> http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
>
> I'd recommend the 65-200mm f/4, instead.
>
> Gary Reese
> Las Vegas, NV
>
>
< 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 >
|