Jeff Keller wrote:
> .........
> The lenses are fast enough to be focused fairly easy and have a short enough
> focal length to be hand held, but I've never seen anyone promoting them as a
> great lens. The Zuiko 300/4.5 isn't too large nor heavy. Even the Tamron SP
> 60-300 is as fast as the little cat and not much more conspicuous.
>
As one who has owned and used all three at the same time, I have to say
that the experience of using them is very different. The 350/.6 is much
smaller and lighter than either the 300/4.5 or the 60-300. At first, it
seems very freeing. Then I started to run into its limitations.
In common with the longer cats, it has "unique" bokeh. It's not just the
classic donut shaped highlights. other things get really "interesting"
when used closer in and with subjects with a lot of depth to them. I
rather like what the close focusing long lens has done for this shot,
but note the double images of some elements and the edgy quality of some
other OOF elements
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Garden04/pages/3649_16.htm>.
F5.6 at 350 mm can be fine, other than the donuts, for shots where
everything is out very close to infinity. For closer focusing distances,
and it does focus quite close, or where the subject isn't all in one
plane at right angles to the view of it, the DOF can be very shallow.
It seems to me to be a lens that is only useful in relatively few
situations, compared to the more conventional designs you mention.
Somehow, I find the limitations of the 500 & 600 mm, f8 and 1000 f11
cats less annoying than the 350. Perhaps it's the extra reach and lack
of useful conventional alternatives at the longer fls, I'm not entirely
sure. In any case, I still have the 300/4.5, 60-300 and long cats.
I sold my 350/5.6 to Mike, to try out as a backpacking lens, for much
less than the price you posted a link to. I seem to recall that he too
found its unique optical characteristics too much to offset its great
virtues of size and weight. Don't know if he sold it on or not.
> .......
> 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.
>
Might work if subjects never see the lens at any other angle. Otherwise,
the conventional lenses scream telephoto, where the 350/5.6 just looks
odd. for stealth reach, I'd guess an OM 135 mm on an E-thingie would be
great, small lenses with 270 mm reach.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|