Frank van Lindert responded thus to Lynn:
> >Second question. I would like suggestions please on OM lenses for nature
> >and wildlife photography. I'm about to buy a bellows for closeup work of
> >flowers and would like hints on which lens(es) would work best. Also I'd
> >like some opinions on really long lenses for bird photos. I've never
> >used really long Zuikos (anything 300mm or over) and would like to know
> >if they are worth the cost. Any ideas on non-Zuiko long lenses?
>
> One of our list members (hi John G) is better experienced in wildlife
> photography than I am, so let him do the answers for the tele (if he
> is listening in, that is)
Always listening Frank. Brightens my whole day up reading the daily ZuikoNews
- except the thread about prices that is. The 3Ti seems still further from my
grasp :(
WRT Lynn's question about wildlife. When people ask about lenses for nature
photography, the answer always depends on what you're going to shoot. If
you're based in the States, larger mammals may be what you're after and as
such, I reckon the Zuiko 200mm f/4 would be ideal. Use this with a 25mm
extension tube and you can get some pretty nice flower portraits too.
If you are hoping to shoot birds, then the Zuiko 300mm f/4.5 plus the 1.4x
converter would be ideal. This, along with the 2x convertor, would give a set
of focal lengths of 300, 420 and 600mm which is ideal. Any of the latter
combination gives acceptable results and the 300mm f/4.5 is a very nice lens
indeed.
Olympus do a 600mm and although its sharp, it is very slow, old hat and
unweildy. I'd stay away from this unless you only intend to shoot larger
animals that don't move too fast - bears, moose etc. Another drawback with
this lens is that it doesn't accept the Olympus 1.4x convertor.
If you have serious money to spend then obviously the 350mm f/2.8 Zuiko is
the way to go. It is *very* sharp and contrasty, mates perfectly with the
1.4x and 2x convertors and looks the biz too. However, its as heavy as it is
expensive so be warned. Its great if you are not packing much else, but if
you are also carrying a 600mm plus a whole raft of other Olympus glass, then
the weight is a bit much. Its the perfect lens for using from a hide (blind)
though.
I've owned the 300mm f/4.5, the 600mm and the 350mm f/2.8 (in that order) and
I have been happy with them all. My work forced me down the 600mm route big
time and so I ended up with a N*kk*r 600mm f/5.6 (my absolute workhorse lens)
and I have recently swapped my 350mm for a 300mm AF N*kk*r, simply because of
the weight. I had to get a 600mm with internal focusing just for speed of
focusing. The old Olympus rack and pinion method is too slow by half. In
fact, if I had the dosh, I would go out tomorrow and get a 600mm f/4 AF
N*kk*r (I wouldn't have said that three years ago).
To some up. For reasonable wildlife shots I'd go for a Zuiko 200mm f/4, a
300mm f/4.5 and a 1.4x convertor. Maybe get a 2x convertor at a later date.
If you don't feel there's enough difference in focal length between the 200
and 300, then consider the 85-250 zoom. This is much heavier than the 200mm
but gives you a wider range of focal lengths.
Regards.
John.
############################################################
| This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
| To receive the Digest version mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "subscribe olympus-digest" in the message body.
| To unsubscribe from the current list mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "unsubscribe olympus" in the body.
| For questions mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html
############################################################
|