You're right about only two lenses for the equivalent of 28-400 and both
are 2.8-3.5 so they're pretty good on speed. I had gotten used to doing
the equivalent of 28-200 with the Minolta A1's 2.8-3.5 lens. I thought
long and hard about this weight and lens change issue before throwing in
the towel on 4/3's.
Even with Canon/Nikon APS-C size sensors you can't duplicate this 4/3's
two lens arrangment. You can, however, in three lenses get a constant
2.8 aperture coverage from the equivalent of 28mm up to 480mm but with a
gap between 55 and 70mm. (using 17-50/55, 70-200 and 120-300). The
constant 2.8 throughout the range is something you can't do with 4/3's.
Of course, if you actually buy the Sigma 120-300/2.8 you will be broke
so you'd best opt for the alternative 100-300/4.
Anyhow, 95% of my shooting is between 28-200. I have the 28-80/2.8
piece and am expecting the 80-200/2.8 piece to arrive tomorrow. The OM
mount lenses have to handle 17mm, 24mm, 50 & 90mm macro and 250mm. I
don't have anything longer than that that's worthwhile mounting on the
camera other than the 2000/10 Celestron. Actually, in that case, it's
mounting the camera on the lens vs. the other way around.
Of course, we have Moose's latest test of the 5D against his 300D which
showed that a cropped section of the 5D's sensor resolved more detail
than the 300D. Maybe I should count my 80-200/2.8 as much longer than that.
Chuck Norcutt
John Gettis wrote:
> I feel the same way about the E-500. I like the fact that I can carry the
> camera and 2 lenses and be covered from 28mm-400mm. I don't think you can
> do that with any other system and have the lenses speed the Olympus lenses
> have. Now I could be wrong on that but don't think so Just my 2 cents
> worth
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|