On 12/20/2019 11:27 AM, Jan Steinman wrote:
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
I carry the PLeica 100-400 because I love LONG.
I carry the OM 500/8 Reflex with me everywhere, because I can.
I have both. I can't say that I have the luxury of testing multiple examples. My PLeica was bought new as soon as it was
available. My 500/8 was bought from JohnH, and is pristine in appearance. The PLeica is simply sharper, by a fair
margin. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/500mmLenses/500mm.htm>
Shot @ 1:40 with E-M5 II in HR mode., indoors, on sturdy tripod with remote release. In fairness to the designers, the
500/8 was designed to cover FF. Had it been designed for half frame, it might be better - who knows?
The PLeica is about the same diameter, but much longer and heavier. It also, and this is crucial to me, covers a wide
range of FLs. LR says that I have taken 13,292 shots with it, 1,481 @ 100 mm, 6,421 @ 400 mm, with the rest spread out
pretty randomly in between.
I guess I like small and light because they fit in my bag, and big, heavy, and
fast if I have to carry anything besides my bag.
On the road, the bag is just transport. In the field, it stays in car or room. I carry two camera bodies around my neck
and often a third clipped to my belt. The PLeica 12-60 and 100-400 are on the bodies around my neck. There's a pouch
with achromatic C-U lenses for both also on my belt or in a photo vest.
I get the impression from the photos you post that most of your photography is around the farm and island? A lot of my
photography is at the other end of a plane flight or two, and/or a long drive. This year included Bhutan, So. Utah, NE
Mass, Maine and Ireland. A lot of driving in all cases.
We have different subjects, styles and needs, so we value different gear. The 500/8 just doesn't make the cut away from
home. It is, perhaps unfortunately (?), more talisman of the past than working gear.
I can't see carrying a separate case for something that tops out at f/6.3! I'll
the 500/8 plus a focal reducer does better than that, at under 60% of the
weight and length! (But, of course, no autofocus and no OIS.)
All deal killers for me. I can't figure out why I would want to put a focal reducer on the 500/8. The whole point of it
is reach, no? Add no EXIF to my list of deal killers.
So yea, I put a premium on small and light. But if it can't be small and light,
it has to earn its keep by being fast.
I look for the smallest, lightest gear that meets my photographic criteria.
Alternatives 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/
|