I had a 300/4.5 for many, many years until the need for it left me. It was
every bit the equal of any non-ED lens that I ever used or saw images from.
But it doesn't match the crispness of the shots from the Tamron 80-200/2.8,
which has spoiled me.
I wish that Olympus had reformulated the 300 with IF and ED glass, as Nikon did
for their small 300.
Skip
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Please reply to [skipwilliams at pobox.com]
Direct responses to the email address on the header may get lost
----------------------------------------------------------------->
>Subject: Re: [OM] 200 or 300mm Zuiko prime?
> From: Thomas Heide Clausen <omlist@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:07:11 +0200
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>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 >
< 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 >
|