What Bill said. Producing a 300/2.8 for m43 would be to undermine the entire
marketing philosophy of the camera. And I don't see that it would gain
anything, given the in-body stabilisation and ISO settings which make Tri-X
look pedestrian.
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: NSURIT@xxxxxxx [mailto:NSURIT@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 13 February 2014 12:05
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] In praise of Olympus
My guess is a lens that can be handheld and affordable by most. Certainly
the technology is there to make it f- whatever, however with small bodies
why would you want an expensive set of weights in you camera bag. I have
had had both the Olympus 300mm 4.5 and the 400mm f6.3, both of which were
pretty easy to work with. Each were replaced by the Tamron SP adaptall
lenses that were at f2.8 on the 300mm and f4 on the 400mm. Great lenses
and heavy as heck. Although both have been used handheld, 99% of the time
they are on a tripod. Fast long glass means a heavy lens. Don't think
Olympus has pitched its tent in the heavy camp. Bill Barber
In a message dated 2/12/2014 11:36:50 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mak@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
? 300 f2.8. 250 f2.0. F4? Ick
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|