Of course I got it wrong. It was the 65-200/4.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gary Reese <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 5:34:30 AM America/Los_Angeles
To: wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] 135mm/2.8+2xA :::off-line:::
Hi:
<< I was impressed when Gary Reese in a rare submission to the list
indicated
that he had sold his 200/4 because he found that he liked the 80-200/4
better
because it was sharper and more flexible. >>
Somewhere along the line I picked up another and carry it along with
me. But
most of my 200mm shots come from a 80-200mm f/2.8 Tamron. Susie
shoots the
65-200mm all the time and I grab her's (ours) when I don't have the
Tamron
nearby. Thus, the 200mm is under utilized, but ready and waiting for
important outdoor shots.
I would say the 65-200mm Zuiko is a VERY fine choice as a travel lens.
Maybe
the single best choice for one to take along.
Of course, I can't post responses, so if you want to pass this along,
feel
free.
Gary Reese
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California, USA
< 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 >
|