On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, gma wrote:
|John A. Prosper wrote:
|>
|>/4.5
|> |just ain't making the weight cut even the 65-200 is a bit much! ( Maybe
|> |this new light-weight zoom they're selling with the 2000??)
|>
|> Sounds like Gary's idea of using a 200/5 is the way for you
|> to go if you can find one used. It's as short and about as
|> light as a standard lens but is a true 200mm tele.
|
|--
|Is the 200 F/5 a Zuiko? Haven't heard of it. I'll check my lens brochure
|tonite.
Yes, this was one of the early 200mm lens models which seem
to have gotten discontinued in favor of the far more popular
200/4.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|