Skip (you got me into it, too) Williams wrote:
> It's a very good lens, if a little heavy. For stationary
> subjects, I bet it'd be the cat's meow...
I'm finding that autofocus is getting mighty useful. However, I
can track moving subjects pretty well with the 100/2.8 and the
200/4. Actually, it's exactly the same as focusing on the 2-4
screen in my OM body.
> Did you guys see the new article on Mike Johnson's site where
> he called the
> 50/2 and the 50-200/2.8-3.5 two of the best lenses made
> anywhere for a DSLR?
I think a bit of a bias is showing through. Maybe he's in an
anti-image-stabilization mood right now. Those are good lenses,
though, and I haven't seen any gripes about the 50/2. Pretty
inexpensive too. The 50-200 is currently out of my budget
reach, but someday I'll probably pick up one on the used market
(if they ever hit the used market...)
AG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|