Thanks Ken,
I agree f5.6 at the long end isn't too bright, but then it's only about 1/2
stop slower than the OMZ 300/4.5 and the faster alternatives, e.g. 90-250/2.8,
I just couldn't justify the $s. Sounds like it's probably ok for landscape
which I am more interested in than sport.
What is the AF performance like @300mm ?
...Wayne
> Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I haven't personally purchased one, but did briefly test one.
>
> My only complaint with the lens is the maximum aperture. I prefer my
> lenses being a little brighter--OK, a LOT brighter. But with that
> comes the issue of size and weight.
>
> The 70-300 is one of those lenses that feels right. It balances in the
> hand extremely well and is very sharp and contrasty. Without a doubt,
> based on price and performance, this is the lens bargain of the new
> century. You CANNOT go wrong buying this lens. It boxes well above its
> weight.
>
> I don't hand out highest ratings too often, so in this case, I'll give
> it 4 out of 5 lenscaps on my rating scale. I'd give it a perfect five,
> but feel that the design specification for the lens was inadequate for
> low-light applications. It's just too dim for indoor shooting, sports
> or for anything that moves faster than a gross-looking casserole at a
> pot-luck.
>
> Ken Norton
> www.zone-10.com
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
...Wayne
Wayne Harridge
http://lrh.structuregraphs.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|