Gene, It you want to try a 300mm without investing a lot of money, I have a
very nice Sears 300mm f-5.6 I'll sell for $40 plus shipping. If you don't
like it send it back within three weeks for a $40 refund. It's a little
smaller than the Zuiko version. /jim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of gwilburn@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 7:26 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] 200 or 300mm Zuiko prime?
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
--
Gene Wilburn, gene@xxxxxxxxxx
Northern Journey Online, http://www.NorthernJourney.com/
< 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 >
|