Gary Reese wrote:
>Ah, the 60-120mm f/2.8. Try and find one in an OM mount, though. I've only
>seen one in my life and I hope I can buy it off the owner someday.
>
Got one right here. I even found the correct clip-on hood. Completely
different animal than the SP 80-200/2.8. MUCH smaller and lighter. I
don't feel the need for a tripod and bearer. :-) I'll keep you in mind
if I ever decide to sell it. I posted some shots with it when somebody
else asked about it a while ago.Three of the shots have full pixel
extracts from the 2700 dpi scans
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Mona/index.htm>. They weren't really
taken as tests, just hand held playing around in the yard.
A lot of patience bagged both the 24-40 and 60-120/2.8s and hoods on the
'Bay. Add the 50/1.4 for a light, speed kit that covers a lot of range.
>I use a Tamron SP 80-200mm f/2.8 myself.
>
Wonderful lens, but not for casual use for me.
>Used in be, in pre-eBay days, that some of us selling goods would delight in
>talking up an item on a mailing list which we had earmaked for sale. I could
>do that now, but I'd be guilty of potential bias in my recommendation.
>
Well, I'd second you on the SP 80-200.2.8. I just wish it were as small
and light as the AT-X.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|