On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 16:31:22 -0500
Skip Williams <om@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
Never tried that lens, but I take your word for it ;)
> I wish that Olympus had reformulated the 300 with IF and ED glass,
> as Nikon did for their small 300.
Now, that would have been good. Ahh, well....
--thomas
>
> 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 >
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://voop.free.fr/
------------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|