Ingemar Uvhagen wrote:
>John P,
>
>To answer your question "...what is your prime target with such a long
>lens?":
>I will use it for photographing animals in the nature, and generally
>getting closer to any distant object. I therefore think I don't need the
>lens to have apertures more that 5.6 as Tokina has (to mention one).
>However, I don't want the lens to be too slow either, because then I
>will not be able to have the possibility to take pictures as I might
>with a bigger aperture. I know the money talks in this case.
>Basically I want something in between as animals don't pose, if you know
>what I mean. So, not too slow, but not too fast.
>
>I think, as Temmu Oinonen said, that a Tokina 400/5.6 might be a good
>buy. I have heard it is quite reliable, good and not too expensive. Of
>course I am only looking for second hand lenses as they are just as good
>as new lenses (if they have been treated well of course).
>
>Now, what is so good with Zuiko telephoto lenses as both you, John, and
>Ulf says? I have heard that Zuiko was the "state of the art" when they
>came, but that today's lenses are far better. I don't know myself, that
>is why I am curious and asking. Is it the colour, the sharpness, the
>contrast handling or what?
>
>Regards/
> Ingemar Uvhagen
> Gislaved, Sweden
>
Sharpness, colour rendition, build quality. Certainly not handling as at
least the Sigma 400's are of the internal focusing type, allowing much
quicker focusing than the Zuikos. Though I must say I prefer the feeling of
the Zuikos even in this respect, but then maybe I'm a bit weird in my tastes
here.
That new lenses are far better than the Zuikos, well, I wouldn't bet on
that!
Ulf Westerberg
< 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 >
|