Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 350mm Zuiko

Subject: Re: [OM] 350mm Zuiko
From: gma <gma@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:11:30 -0700
Gary;

Good, brutally honest review.  Would we expect any less?

PCACala@xxxxxxx wrote:

> Hi George:
>
> From: Re: [OM] Was Digital vs Film, is now Fawlty Towers and OM addiction.
> > As for the waterfall, don't you have a Zuiko at your disposal you could
> >  get that shot with <G>!
>
> Sure, your "new" 350mm f/2.8 Zuiko.  Only problem - the waterfall is dry this
> time of the year!!  But it pulled in the hanging seep next to it (presently
> wet) with more resolution and contrast than with a Canon FD 300mm f/5.6
> However, matched 2X teleconverters on both (stopped down at least 2 stops)
> yielded about equal details.

This is a bit disappointing, eh?

>  Also, a 300 mm f/5.6 is next to impossible to
> focus with precision.  It is a wild guess with a 2X.  Focusing with the 350
> f/2.8 is a cake walk.  You even hear a "woosh" as the air is forced out of the
> lens barrel.
>
> Interesting to note is that the Canon doesn't have a tripod mounting ring.  It
> was necessary to hang a cement block from the tripod to get stability.  The
> Zuiko was balanced well and didn't need a brick, although I could tell the
> shot where the wind gusts shook the lens.
>
> How about this: shooting the 350mm focal length at 0.6 miles away and 0.2
> miles up, I could make out the railing pattern and the people sitting IN the
> resturant at the top of the Stratosphere tower!  It took a microscope to
> detect them, but they are there amidst the grain of a Fuji Sensia II 100
> slide.  With Tech Pan, I likely could have determine those wearing glasses.
> (I have some T-Max 100 shots, but they aren't developed yet).  In full length
> portraits, individual strands of hair are distinct.  In a word:
> "hairsplitting."
>
> Downsides: Heavy as all get out, too long for my typical way of seeing, scary
> to handle such an expensive collection of glass, scary to travel with (re:
> security), impossible to get out of its aluminum case fast enough for grab
> shots of wildlife.

Picking nits again? <g>

>
>
> I was photographing a duck with it at the Desert National Range.  The close
> focus distance proved to be limiting and I was soon yelling at the duck to get
> him/her to back off.  It was obviously in love with the big purple ED element
> staring at it!  Oh, and it was well after dusk.  I was shooting with a flash
> and low and behold the focus accuracy was pretty close, thanks to f/2.8
> viewing.

What screen were you using?

>
>
> For those lusting after a 350mm f/2.8 Zuiko, you might just drive yourself
> crazy TRYING to find enough shots to justify it.  I had the wild idea of
> telephoto compressing the Fremont Street Experience (4 blocks long).  Forget
> it, I took a rotten 35 mm f/2.0 view instead.  It worked great at a kids horse
> show, giving full frame hourse across the arena.  I tried on two successive
> weekends to find desert bighorn (mountain) sheep to photograph.  I blew out
> tires both weekends and never saw any sheep, although it was a great spotting
> scope.  The second time it happened, I caught a ride back to the city from a
> couple who had just photographed one on the shores of Lake Mead.  Their camera
> and lens?  A disposable with Kodak Max film!  But, they wished they had a
> better camera.  So I gave them a business card.
>
> Gary Reese
> Las Vegas, NV

george


< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz