Dear Olympians/Zuiks:
I was away for a few days, and hence had no chance to comment on a few
topics of interest to me, or to respond to some questions tossed at me.
In the next day or two, I will attempt to catch up (and no, I have abso-
lutely nothing profound to say about driving a 4X4 in the Rockies :-)).
Ulf Westerberg wrote:
>My favourite choice was and is the Sigma APO 400.[...] The non-APO
>version is far inferior. The Tokina SD I was not too impressed [with]
>(Other list-members have expressed their satisfaction, though).
Teemu Oinonen wrote:
>I have a Tokina 400/5.6 which I bought second hand. I've been happy with
>this lens. I find the sharpness and colour of the images quite adequate
>for my purposes. The only thing that is missing is the tripod collar.
Stuart Goggin wrote:
>I too have the Tokina RMC 400 f5.6 and get some incredibly sharp pictures.
I'm with Stuart on this one. My lens is also the older Tokina RMC model,
not the current Tokina SD, and although the two look identical on paper,
I suspect that there may be some real differences, because I have seen
quite a few less than complimentary remarks on the latter.
However, my own experiences with the former are unfailingly good: the
picts are sharp and crisp, whether shot handheld or on a tripod, and the
lens works very well indeed with the OLY 1.4X-A TC. (Note that the latter
is untrue wrt most Sigma lenses). If there is a demand, I'll be happy to
put up some snaps made with the Tokina RMC 400 f5.6 for others to see,
as I don't believe there is anything made with this lens among the shots
I have submitted to the OLY gallery.
A propos the missing tripod mount: about 6 mos ago, I bought a spare one
from THK Photo, Tokina's US ditributor, for $14.95 -- pretty steep in my
case, since I had paid only US$70 for the lens itself :-) (s/h, of course).
Ulf Westerberg wrote:
>IMHO the Zuikos 300/4.5+1.4X and 400/6.3 are in a class by themselves.
John Petrush wrote:
>The 300mm f/4.5 and 400mm f/6.3 Zuikos are, as Ulf said, in a class of
>excellence apart from any third party alternative.
Yup, the God of Zuiko on Mt. Olympus has heard your worshipful, admiring,
dutiful platitudes. Grovel, my friends, and come Christmas you shall be
rewarded with nice little Zuiko 350/f2.8's under your Christmas trees...
Ho, ho, ho. :-) :-)
Foxy wrote:
>You may want to consider the Zuiko 300 f4.5 and later add a Zuiko1.4 TC.
>The 1.4 TC will give you 420mm f6.3 in a nice compact package. I heard
>somewhere that this combination is better and cheaper than Zuiko 400mm
I totally agree with Foxy, and have sounded the same opinion in the past.
The Zuiko 400/f6.3 is bulky, slow, overweight, and overpriced. With the
300/f4.5 + 1.4X-A TC one gets almost the same performance, much smaller
min. focusing, and 2/3 the weight and bulk -- for 2/3 the money ! And,
if that's not enough, then save your lunch money for a month and buy the
excellent 600/f6.5 Zuiko (approx. $1,300-1,400) instead of the 400/f6.3.
This is a very healthy(!) solution, as it combines effective dieting, a
solid investment, and a virtual guarantee of future vigorous physical
exercise each time you use the 600mm lens :-)
Finally, Brad Bennett wrote:
>I have a 500mm f8 mirror telephoto by Cambron that works exactly like a
>Zuiko lens, looks like a Zuiko, but comes with it's own filter kit.
>The price was considerably less than Zuiko (over 65 0.000000e+00ss).
Brad is lucky that Zuiks are a very tolerant bunch (right?). Normally,
anyone daring to commit such blasphemous act like comparing a C*mbr*n
(could he possibly stoop any lower?) to a Zuiko, is subject to immediate
excommunication. So, Brad, pls watch your step, and if you must engage
in a blood sport -- pls choose something less dangerous (PvT bashing
has been really popular around here lately :-)).
Cheers,
/Gary Schloss.
Studio City, CA
schloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|