First off, I have to admit that I can't afford it so this is "sour grapes".
But from careful reading of Gary's site, starting at 200mm, you will not get
anything like excellent results unless you have a very sturdy tripod, focus,
frame, lock the mirror, then pre-fire the aperture. This doesn't sound like
sports photography to me. Nor does it sound like rock concert photography
(about which I have some first hand experience).
So, if you have to go through all of that to get a minimally sharp exposure
with the 250/2, who would use it? What the heck good is it? Would you want
to shoot Half Dome in mid-winter from a mile away? Like I said, I can't
afford it but I got rid of my Tokina 400mm because even using the tripod
mount on my previous (rickety) tripod at 1/250 on 400 speed film in DAYLIGHT
(open shade) I couldn't get a non-blurry picture. I suspected that the
tripod was the chief culprit but Gary implies that the OM bodies themselves
(blasphemy alert!) are not suitable to super-tele work. Why would I buy a
250mm in a mount that's not compatible with super-tele work?
Gary implies that a heavier body would be an asset. Maybe at 200mm and
above, a heavy Nikkormat is the tool of choice. If I used a Nikkormat as a
hammer to beat my OM-4, I know it would be...... uh.... a short fight.
Lamadoo
> Rock concert photography from the cheap seats? Motorcycle race pictures on
> Kodachrome 25? There would be some use for it...! Some accounts have it as
> one of the best 35mm lenses ever made, by anybody anytime ever... just as
> you might have suspected.
< 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 >
|