The 300mm is a rather specialized lens. It gives only one perspective.
If you already have coverage of shorter focal lengths and know you like
long teles, it's a fine choice. If you don't already have coverage in
the medium to long range, I'd opt for the zoom. A lot of people don't
find many shots for a long lens and find they don't use them. I'm the
opposite and tend to 'see' tele shots everywhere, but have to work
harder at 'seeing' WA shots that really work. That said, I tend to use
zooms in preference to the prime 300mm because of the flexibility in
framing. I used my Tokina 150-500/5.6 for several shots this week.
There are some Redtail hawks nesting across the street and the young
ones are big enough now to perch on the side of the nest, so I'm
thinking looong tele. I think I'll take the big tripod, the Tokina, the
600/8 the 1000/11 out there now.
Like Tom and Bill, I think the Tamron SP 60-300 is a terrific lens.
Moose
Tom Scales wrote:
There's not a simple answer to this question. It depends on both what you
want to do with it and what other lenses you have. I don't find myself
using either one all that frequently. I prefer the 65-200/4 and the
50-250/5 to the 85-250/5, mostly because of the weight.
Given all the choices, I'd go with a Tamron 60-300. OK, not one of the
choices, but.
< 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 >
|