Forgot to say thanks for the details.
Chuck Norcutt
Jeff Keller wrote:
> The 400/4 looks very similar to the the 300/2.8. The lens is physically
> longer and a little heavier. (Tamron 400/4 - 2.33kg, Tamron 300/2.8 -
> 2.15kg, Zuiko 350/2.8 - 3.9kg). Both Tamrons have a 112mm filter ring. The
> 300/2.8 was first made in white, then green, then in charcoal grey. The
> white one isn't seen very often. I saw one person claim it isn't as sharp.
> The dark grey version has interference problems with the Olympus 1.4x
> teleconverter. If you get the 300/2.8 you want the green one. I've only seen
> the 400/4 in green. I believe Walt uses a 2x on his 300/2.8 and has been
> very happy with that.
>
> The 400/4 works very well with the Olympus 1.4x teleconverter giving a
> 560/5.6 that is lighter than anything comparable. It is fast enough to
> easily focus using an E-1 at least in daylight (much easier for me than the
> Zuiko 500/8 on an OM).
>
> I had posted a picture and enlarged area of several hundred Monarch
> butterflies hanging from a Eucalyptus branch several years ago. The
> butterflies were somewhere between 20 and 30 feet away but the very enlarged
> portion made it very easy to see the knob on the end of their antenna. The
> resolution is very impressive.
>
> A couple list members had emailed me saying the 400/4 was a great lens to
> get, one even prefered it to the Zuiko 350/2.8. The 400/4 has sporadic
> availability. When I got mine I had been watching yabe for 6 months and
> hadn't seen one. I bought a "bargain" rated lens from KEH. Afterwards I
> probably saw 4-6 sell in a period of about 1 year. I haven't seen one for
> quite awhile now. The 300/2.8 is pretty easy to find. A good price for a
> 400/4 is about $800-$950 with several sales having been for $1100+. The
> 300/2.8 since it is much more commonly sold can be bought for about $600 or
> even less although they have also sold for $800+. Both the 400/4 and 300/2.8
> often come with a Tamron 112mm UV filter that does not seem to hurt the
> picture quality. KEH currently has a Tokina ATX 300/2.8 for $1079. I think
> that is the second one I've seen in the last five years. I also remember
> seeing a Sigma 300/2.8 that I had placed a low bid on. Stephen Troy recently
> mentioned the Sigma 500 4.5 that KEH has for $1479 and has posted great
> train pictures using one (and other long lenses).
>
> Although I've got quite a few long tele's to choose from, the Tamron 400/4
> is the one I use the most.
>
> -jeff
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Jeff mentions a 400/4 Tamron, a lens I'm not familiar with. What's the
> best deal in an OM mount 300 or 400mm f/4 or similar fast glass? 2.8 is
> probably too fast meaning expensive and heavy.
>
> Thanks,
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> Jeff Keller wrote:
>
> > You might be right Andrew about the picture being "posed" but I wouldn't
> > assume it was. My experience with the herons near where I live is that if
> I
> > take a couple hours for them to accept my presence, I can get very good
> > pictures of them. I use a longer lens, a 400/4 Tamron, often with a 1.4x
> > teleconverter.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|