As I have the old 50-200, I am used to the fact that it's not
super-fast in AF. Accuracy and speed of focus has seemed to improve
from E-1 to E-330 to E-3 as well. That's all good. But as I know
there are better lenses out of the gate, I'm curious as to your
impression of the 70-300's speed in focusing compared to a SWF lens.
I suspect it's already better than the old 50-200 ...
Joel W.
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That was my impression too using it on the E-520 when it was first
> released.
> In nice, sunny weather I got some very good, sharp shots of beasties.
> Of course, that was with IS.
> I just suggested the 'superzoom' kit to a friend who shoots
> motorbikes - he's the Phillip Island course chaplin.
> As Stephen Scharf discovered, you really need 600mm for the bikes
> down there.
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On 02/03/2009, at 3:53 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>
>> I'm ALMOST of the opinion that the DZ 70-300 is a "must have"
>> lens. The
>> minimum aperture is a bit slim for some of my work, but the lens is
>> extremely compact, lightweight and sharp enough and good enough to
>> warrant
>> having. I spent a few quality minutes with the lens and thought
>> about how I
>> would use it. The 50-200 is obviously a better quality lens, but
>> the 70-300
>> just feels good. I don't recall ever using a "consumer grade"
>> super zoom
>> that I ever felt impressed with--this is the first for me.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|