On 2/13/2014 7:27 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> 300/5.6 maybe... but not 300/4. Way too heavy.
> Redundant. Zooms are already there.
I agree. The 75-300 is f6.7 @ 300 mm, about half a stop slower, which, as Chuck
points out later, is nothing these days.
> The 300/4 is the right mixture of
> focal length and aperture. It's pretty much exactly what the birders
> have been asking for (along with 400mm, but that's another story).
I'm not entirely convinced. At 600 mm eq. DOF is really shallow at f4. I'd
rather shoot at f8 or f11 and higher ISO in
most circumstances.
I'm also not convinced about the efficacy of AF at that focal length -
especially hand held with moving subjects. Giving
a bit of extra DOF can help.
Virtually no one was shooting 600 mm eq. hand held until very recently. It puts
a lot of strain on other system aspects,
too, such as IBIS and anti-shock.
The final factor is post processing. If you need tack sharp right out of the
camera, I imagine a large, heavy, expensive
300/4 @ f8 will outperform the zoom @ f8. If you can use decent deconvolution
software and are generally PP competent,
I'm not so sure. <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=9247>
L. L. Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|