I'd lean to the Tokina 100-300 AT-X f/4 Lighter, better lens than the Tamron.
Larry
dreammoose wrote:
> 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 >
< 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 >
|