Might try the 70-300 on the long end as cleaned up by DXO. Noticed
that DXO supports
this lens with some bodies. I hope Oly reports the focusing distance
in the exif---it works better that way. Some aberrations that can be
ameliorated are focus distance sensitive. Canyon in there infinite
wisdom does not put the focusing distance in 5D files AFAIK as none
of THEIR software required it. They changed that in the 5DII.
The deconvolution might sharpen it up a
bit. Might be worth a free trial download. Sample variability of your
copy form the profiled one can make a difference.
The RAW converter was the Achilles heel but is now better and perhaps
as good if not better than most.
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/versions_pricing
Mike
> so the 50-200+1.4X gives me much the same range, same effective
aperature at
> the short end but a stop faster at the long end, and I've got the
50-200
> range covered too.
>
I forgot to add that the 70-300 gets pretty soft close to 300mm. Too
soft for me. May be partly due to the slow shutter speeds required or
that it doesn't balance well on a tripod. In any event that makes it a
70-250 for critical use. The 50-200 + xx beats the pants off it at the
long end. And of course costs 3 times more.
One plus for the 70-300 not previously mentioned is its macro
capability.
Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|