Probably you and Jim are right. Looking out from my OM-centric world the
350/5.6 doesn't seem that rare. But there are a lot of people interested in
them that aren't using OMs.
My comments about the size of the 300/4.5 being of reasonable size were
based on that it will easily fit in my backpack along with a handful of
lenses. My Tamron 400/4 won't. Also someone looking head-on at a 300/4.5
isn't going to see much difference from looking head-on at a 350/5.6. A cat
lens "shouts long telephoto". A 72mm glass element doesn't shout as loud ...
maybe this is more my own personal bias though.
The astronomy side might be something to look into ...
-jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of ScottGee1
I'd concur with Jim about rarity.
Also, are they used in astronomy?
ScottGee1
On 7/13/06, Jeff Keller <jrk_om@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I've never understood why the little Tamron 350/5.6 sells for so much
> more than most other catadioptric lenses. 290005204692 currently at
> $280 with 8 hours to go.
>
> Puzzled ???
>
> -jeff
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|