Having experienced the 350/2.8 that Mike is discussing (the actual lens, not
one like it) and having owned a number of 300/4.5s, I guess I'll drop in a
couple comments. The 300/4.5 is clearly an outstanding lens. For its size
and weight, there is nothing like it. I am not a long telephoto user very
often, so the Tamron 60-300 is now my lens in that focal length, but if you
like 300, the 4.5 is wonderful and quite a bargain.
That said, it is NOT a 350/2.8. Night and day. Of course, the 350 is much
larger and heavier and is a tripod or monopod lens. That's a given. But,
when you need it.....wow. Mike mentions focusing. The 350/2.8 has a
'snap' that is unparalleled. The only other lens I've seen with that kind
of snap is the 180/2, also not a small lens. The results are truly
stunning.
I can truly see why Mike calls this is money lens. It's not for everyone.
Shoot, it's not for many people. But for someone that needs it, there is
nothing like it.
Tom
> In a message dated 9/9/2002 Daniel J. Mitchell writes:
>
> << I'm sure I should know this one already from reading the list, but
every
> so
> often I'll see someone's photos and wonder -- what's the advantage of the
> 'big glass' lenses again? >>
>
> Speed, sharpness, and bokeh. My "money lens" is what I call it. Results
from
> it are amazing and speak for themselves.
>
> << I see why a 350/2.8 is so expensive, certainly, but given that most of
> the
> shots taken with them seem to be at f/8 or f/11, is it really worth the
> money? >>
>
> They do? In all the thousands of frames I have now shot through my 350/2.8
> very few were at f8 or f11. The vast majority are at f2.8 or f4 (often
with
> the Zuiko 1.4XA which adds a stop also BTW). Seldom am I stopped down more
> than f5.6.
>
> << You gain ease of focusing because the DOF is smaller there, and a
> brighter viewfinder, but that seems fairly small improvements for the many
> many thousands more dollars they cost. >>
>
> When using a 2 series screen, the focus can not be described. It must be
> experienced to appreciate. The difference is not "fairly small" at all.
Vast
> would better describe.
>
> << Is there other things you gain that I'm not thinking of -- are the
images
> from a 350/2.8 at f8 better than those
> from a 300/4.5 at f8? >>
>
> Sure, speed. The ability to freeze moments in time with ultra-fine grain
> (read slow ISO speed) films in almost all light conditions. Is the 350/2.8
> any sharper than a 300/4.5 at f8? Perhaps not. I don't know since I never
> made the comparison. Could I accomplish the same results with a Zuiko
> 300/4.5? Absolutely not. I would have bought a Tamron 300/2.8 or 400/4 had
I
> not wound up with the big white one.
>
> It really depends on the application, but in general, the big fast ones
tend
> to be the best performers as well.
>
> Mike Veglia
>
< 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 >
|