If it were me, I would most likely go with a Nikon unit (and stay with film) and
take a serious look at the new 80-400 VR (vibration reduction) zoom. Nikon alos
has an 80-200 f2.8 zoom that might suits your needs quite well. One should also
probably consider Canon, as they have a wider range of choices in their IS
(Image Stabiliation) lenses. In particular the 100-400 IS lens and the 70-210
f2.8 would be worht a look. Of course the true lust lens in the Canon line to my
mind is the 300 f2.8 IS lens!
Why not go digital? Because the bodies are frightlfully expensive, and won't
have any resale value in a year or two at the rate that digital is going.
Jim Couch
Tom Scales wrote:
> Oh, what a dilemma. Today was the first soccer game of the season. Two
> games back-to-back (different daughters). I went a little crazy, shooting
> five 24 exposure rolls. Guess I wanted to try out the scanner <g>.
>
> The difference this year is that I took an OM-4T, Winder 2, 50-250/5 combo
> and the IS-3. Hmm. Autofocus. Pretty darn slick.
>
> I actually let the girls each shoot a roll and a half of their sister, using
> the IS-3 which they loved. I did too.
>
> So, my dilemma. Do I keep a nice OM setup for macro photography and general
> photography, but sell enough to finance a decent autofocus system for
> sports? I'd need a decent zoom for outdoor sports and a fast mid-length
> telephoto for indoor sports. An 85/2 and a 50/1.2 for example.
>
> So, if I commit this blashpemous act, what should I consider. With the
> right sales, I could finance a 35mm body and Digital body and lenses. Do I
> go Canon D30 and ???? or do I go Nikon D1/Fuji S1 and ????.
>
> Or do I stay with what I have?
>
> If I did do this, what bodies do I want? What lenses. I only know OM.
>
> OK, Flame away.
>
> Tom
< 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 >
|