Having used but never owned a 300/2.8, I simply don't get the appeal
unless one uses teleconverters. In fact, a lot of used Tamrons seem
to include the 'matched' 1.4x converter.
Of course those who photograph wildlife (which includes sports) need
and use all the speed they can get. The wildest thing I photograph
are wedding receptions. ;o)
Why I don't 'get' the need for 2.8:
1. I can't reliably hand-hold anything longer than ~200mm so it would
be on a tripod anyway.
2. The much discussed blurring of background allowed by a max 2.8
seems exaggerated. At 2.8, total DOF at 15 feet (on an E-1) is .06
feet. At 4.0, it's .09 feet. That's a whopping .03 of a foot.
Circle of confusion = 0.015 mm.
3. 300/4.0 lenses are significantly smaller and easier to carry.
4. 300/4.0 lenses cost less.
5. If memory serves, 4.0 lenses typically focus much closer.
And yes, 2.8 is a bit easier to focus, but using a 300mm with a decent
screen snaps in and out of focus pretty clearly.
FWIW/ScottGee1
On 8/8/06, NSURIT@xxxxxxx <NSURIT@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> 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
==============================================
|