This is an interesting thread. And one that may acually have a chnce of becoming
reality.
The 200 macro is a great idea. There is a lack of that focal legnth in the
macro
group. It should not be a bellows lens, but one that can focus to infinity
IMHO. I just checked Nikon price for MF 200 F/4 micro - it's $779. Certainly a
doable price range for Zuikophiles used to paying $400 for a 40 F/2!
Now, I could be responding to an intended pun, but as for Buddys' 100-300 F/2.8
for under $1500, this is pretty wishful thinking. The lens would be quite big,
on
the order of the 350 F/2.8 And with ED glass and a zoom mechanism, I would guess
it would cost around, oh $6000 or so. (Nikon has a 50-300 F/4.5 ED for $3000)
george
ONLYOLYBW@xxxxxxx wrote:
> In a message dated 6/20/98 3:44:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time, denton@xxxxxxxx
> writes:
> << I vote for a 200 macro--here's why.
> 1. It plays to Oly's main strength. In macro-photography, Oly still has the
> best line of anyone. Note that all the macro-photography lenses and
> accessories are still available new, from the 20mm to the 90mm, and
> flashes, etc.
> 2. Because so many folk use the Oly for macro, there would be quite a
> market for a 200 macro.
>
> Hi Denton,
> Yep a 200 Macro would do it as long as it has a tripod collar.. I for one
> would also like to see a new 100mm - 300mm f 2.8 with ed glass and the works!
> Top quality in the $1,000 to $1,500 range.
> BW
< 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 >
|