On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Chuck Norcutt <
chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> What Moose and Sandy said. If you want the speed and the long focal
> length you have (and will have) no choice except to go with a slow 4/3
> zoom lens for AF and zoom convenience or an old MF lens for speed but
> with its very significant attendant size and weight. f2.8 at 200 or
> 300mm is very big and very heavy no matter who makes it. A click or two
> on the ISO dial is a small price to pay to get rid of several pounds of
> weight. A Canon 200/2.8 weighs 1.7 lbs, the 70-200/2.8 weighs 3.8 lbs.
> An old, MF lens may weigh a bit less but consider (at length) the
> difficulty of doing away with AF when shooting with a very shallow depth
> of field. At 20 feet and 200/2.8 the DOF (depending on CoC assumptions)
> is 3-6 inches. Not easy work.
>
>
After some more digging last night, I'm considering the Panny 45-175 or
45-200. Since that's way under my original budget, I might pick up the OM
100/2.8 off the 'bay and try that for smaller clubs as well. That would
also leave enough room in the budget for the HL-6. Depending on how that
combo works out, and depending on how all of our jobs/finances/VA battles
shake out, I could look at something additional next year.
The dual-focus chip of the E-m1 would open the field some more... but I
will work with what I have.
--
Paul Braun WD9GCO
Music Junkie
"Music washes from the soul the dust of everyday life." -- Harlan Howard
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|