On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks, Ian, for that generous offer. But I didn't realise how much more
> compact was the later version. I had thought that it was just a difference
> in speed.
>
> Since it is compactness that I need, I had better buy one of those. I
> recognise that the image quality will be down a bit, but since I have the
> 50-200 to use when I need quality over portability, that's not a problem.
Chris,
Most of the tele shots in this gallery were made with the later 40-150:
http://jfwilcox.jalbum.net/Fall2009/index.html
Even I can't be entirely sure which of the kit lenses (e-410) I used
in several cases, but any of the shots of trees with colored leaves
would have been with the 40-150. I like that lens a lot. It's the
difference of a 2.8 Zuiko to a 2, when compared to the 50-200 IMO.
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|