300/5.6 maybe... but not 300/4. Way too heavy.
Chuck Norcutt
On 2/13/2014 7:46 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
> 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/
|