The Zuiko 300/4.5 is easily carried but is noticeably heavier than a
200mm.
If you are sure you don't want anything longer than about 300mm, then
you should consider either the Tamron 180/2.5 or Zuiko 180/2.8. You can
put a 1.4X teleconverter on them (Zuiko is SN dependent) with good
results. If you are serious about birds you will want something longer.
The Tamron 400/4 is very good but too large to carry around unless you
know you want to use it.
There are a number of zooms which cover 200mm. The zuiko 65-200 and
50-250 are nice compact and easy to use. The Tamron 60-300 is noticeably
larger but still easy to carry. However the faster speed of the primes
make them easier to focus which can be important with the limited DOF of
long telephotos.
I find it difficult to hand hold anything over 200mm. The 300mm can be
hand held but I am not steady enough to get a very high yield. A monopod
can help dramatically but a tripod is definitely better.
I haven't used the 2x converter enough to judge it. The 1.4x on the
right lens is very good.
-jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: <gwilburn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I'm thinking of expanding my Zuiko kit a bit on the tele side. My
longest
> lens is a Zuiko 100mm f2.8. If you were to pick a 200 or 300, and only
one,
> which would you pick?
>
> I shoot around waters' edges (lakes, rivers) and subjects are often a
bit
> out of reach of the 100mm. The 200 looks like very portable, carryable
> lens. The 300 is larger and has a tripod collar. Can anyone comment on
the
> weight of the 300? Still carryable?
>
> I have a Vivitar 2x teleconverter in my kit and could turn a 200 into
a
> 400 on occasion as needed. Is that recommended or is there too much
loss
> in quality?
>
> Gene
< 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 >
|