Hey, let's all go over to Steve's to "borrow" his 250/2. :-))
Steve, seriously though, you know that we're all envious of your possesion of
those great pieces of glass. I trust you put them to good use.
And my 2 cents on the big white monsters. Evaluate your photo subject needs.
If you more often shoot 250/350/500 than 350/~500/700, you'd be advised to get
the 250 and the 1.4x + 2x. Otherwise get the longer lens and a Tamron 180/2.5
or 80-200/2.8 as a companion. Just be aware that both the 250 and 350 are
monsters. I sold mine years ago because it was too heavy.
FYI, there is an interesting article over on Luminous-Landscape.com where
Michael talks about his decision to buy a 500 or a 600 Nikon lens. The end
result was the 500, as it was ~2kg lighter. That 350/2.8 is about 11 lbs, if I
remember right. That's not to be scoffed at if you do any hiking or totin'.
Skip
>I think you're on the right path. I don't have the 350, but do have the
>250 and 1.4X. The 250 is a little smaller but with the 1.4 attached is
>about equal to the 350 (note they both use the same casket, er, case). The
>performance with the 1.4X is excellent - probably as good or nearly as good
>as the 350 (of course, the 350 and 1.4X gives you a 490mm lens, so I
>wouldn't say the 250 and converter are more "flexible"). Brightness in the
>viewfinder with a 2-4 or 2-13 screen is superb.
>
>I can't comment on the 2X - don't have one and don't need one since I have
>a Sigma 500/4.5 in OM mount.
>
< 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 >
|