The price of the 300/2.8 DZ would have to drop a very long way before it would
be more than a curiosity to me, sort of like an Astin Martin Vanquish. And as
for the 150/2, I'm holding off, at least temporarily. It might be best to see
what the E-3 is like, I tell myself. On the other hand, I say to myself -- we
talk a lot these days -- if the E-3 is really great, the lens prices may go up.
It's a quandry, kind of like the old oil filter TV commercial that said, "You
can pay me now, or you can pay me later," comparing oil filter to engine
rebuild.
Life is tough with all these decisions. Strangely, though, I ain't losing much
sleep over this one. ;-]
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: NSURIT@xxxxxxx
>
>
> In a message dated 8/8/2006 8:36:50 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> hiwayman@xxxxxxx writes:
>
> Well, of course I've got the 300/2.8. It's one of the green ones, probably
> looks a lot like yours.
>
> You were talking about the Tamron, weren't you?
>
>
>
>
> Oh, no. I thought you had completed your DZ arsenal with the 300mm f2.8.
> Yes, each of our Tamrons probably look very much the same and produce right
> decent e-1 images. If I were to carry a really heavy beast with me. it
> would
> have to be your 300mm DZ. Have prices dropped any on them? If the e-3 has
> IS, then the 300mm f2.8 might . . . <[8^) Bill Barber
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|