On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:51:45 -0500
Skip Williams <om@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> More opinions and options:
>
> The 200/5 ($75-100) is great if you don't use it much, as it's so
> light you can carry it often.
I will agree and disagree to the above. Actually, I will rephrase:
the 200/5 is so compact that you can carry it often, and thereby
willl get to use it much ;) I am very happy with my 200/5, and I
think I use it much more than the 200/4, which is much bulkier.
> It's really not much good with a 2x,
Agreed...! It is usefull only on its own.
> given the resulting slowness of ~f/11. If you think you'll only
> need 200, use the 2x with the 100/2.8. The 200/4 is plentiful too,
> but I don't think it's quality is all that great (ditto the
> 300/4.5), IME middle-of-the-pack performance (which isn't saying
> that it's bad, just not exceptional.
300/4.5 is, actually, quite OK as a lens, in particular when taking
the price into account. You get a lot of lens for very little money,
and it is actually excellent. Ok, it is no 250/2, but there is a
significant price difference there too....
And compared to many current 300mm offerings in the "affordable price
range" for Wunderbricks, the Zuiko version is absolutely orders of
magnitude ahead.
But no, it is no 250/2 :)
<SNIP>
So not really disagreeing with Skip, just saying that both the 200/5
and 300/4.5 are very decent lenses at their price points....
--thomas
< 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 >
|