John;
Yes yes, now we're on same wave. I agree that a 600/4 Zuiko would be
advantageous (and as expensicve as a car?) And I'm sure you're right about
500/4 being just a bit short for a lot of wildlife work. As for quality with a
Zuiko 2X, I shot the moon with the following setups:
250/2;
250/2 + 1.4x
250/2 + 2x
250/2 + 1.4x + 2x
Of course, the quality of the photos (mainly loss of sharpness) could be seen
to decrease as you go down that list. But I was surprised at how little
difference there was. With only the 1.4, there was virtually none. And with
the other combos, it was barely detectable under an 8x loupe. But if you're
gonna try to do an 11x14 or 16x20, you'll certainly notice some difference.
I had to sell the 250/2 (to a list member in England!) to finance purchase of a
350/2.8 which I hope to get to use in a serious way soon. I'll test right away
to see diff between 350/2.8 and 700/5.6 I know in my head you're right it
probably will be a bit too much of a loss. Even Oly says in their lens
handbook in the 2x section something like "of course, while the 2x doubles the
focal length , there's no substitute for a prime lens of that focal ..." But I
recently passed up a fairly good deal from a friend on a F4s + 80-200/2.8 for
financial reasons. I was thinking along the same line as you, that it may be a
better system for the type of work you're doing and I'd like to add that
capability in addition to Oly. But would probably cost me $3000-6000 just to
get there and that's out of the question til I hit the lottery. So til then
it's 700/5.6 (1000/8 with 1.4x !!!) and a sherpa or a mule to carry it! Later.
george
John Gardner wrote:
> George wrote:
>
> > You're being a bit harsh, aren't you? Oly can be more than a snapshot
> camera,
> > can't it? It may not be the perfect setup for wildlife, but seems to me
> a 4T
> > with a 350/2.8 and a 1.4X, giving an effective 500/4 EDIF, or maybe with
> the 2X
> > for 700/5.6, would be a reasonable setup, no?
>
> Okay, okay. So I was being a bit harsh, but you get my drift Oly has done
> nothing for us in over a decade except impose ridiculously high prices on
> its loyal followers.
>
> In its defence, the OM system (4Ti) has metering second to none, the lenses
> are so sharp they could cut you and the macro system is superb. I use my
> 4Ti for all my 35mm landscape work and macro work, but for general wildlife
> Olympus definately lacks the big guns.
>
> I did acquire a 350mm f/2.8 and a legendary 1.4x converter and yes, since I
> got this setup, my photography improved no-end. However, 500mm f/4 is only
> just enough for doing small birds and only then if you are working from a
> hide (blind). If you are stalking then 600mm is the order of the day. Even
> when working from my hide I tend to always use my N*kk*r 600mm f/5.6 IFED,
> usually with a 25mm tube and/or a 1.4x converter. I wouldn't dream of using
> a 2x converter, even on the 350mm f/2.8, because the quality is just not up
> to it.
>
> I have to confess I sold my 350mm f/2.8 and 1.4x to a list member here in
> England and replaced it with an AF N*kk*r 300mm f/2.8. The latter lens is
> definately not as contrasty as the former, but it is as sharp and certainly
> much lighter, so I can now carry both the 600mm and 300mm together. I could
> never manage the 600mm and the 350mm because of weight. I have to confess I
> still only own the N*k*n F4s and the two lenses, the rest is entirely
> Zuiko.
>
> I am still an Oly follower and recently bought Paul Tokaroswki's 18mm f/3.5
> Zuiko which I intend to send a post about later. However, just on this
> note, I don't think PT ever used his Oly gear, its definately 11 on a scale
> of 1 to 10.
>
> John.
>
> < 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 >
< 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 >
|