on 7/21/01 7:38 PM, Tom Scales at tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Others have probably answered by now (I'm behind). That never stopped me
> before :).
>
> The 50-250 and the 65-200 are virtually idential from the weight and feel
> perspective. When I pick on up, I actually have to look so see which one it
> is. The big difference is that the 50-250 has more range (obvious, huh).
> For my kids soccer, the 250 is particularly useful to get action on the
> other side of the field and the 50 is perfect for action right in front of
> you. For outdoor events, the f/5 vs. f/4 isn't critical.
>
> So, if you have the 50-250, then the 65-200 may be unnecessary. If you
> don't, but do have the 65-200, you have great lens!
>
> Be prepared, though. The 50-250 goes for a lot!
>
> Tom
>
I got it along with the 24 shift... I haven't seen that stuff yet. I hope it
is in good shape.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|