Didn't mean to imply the Celestron was cheap ... most likely it isn't.
I was refering to other brands. The Celestron sounds interesting.
-jeff
On 3/2/07, Jeff Keller <jeffreyrkeller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As C.H. mentioned there is a Tamron SP 350/5.6 that is fairly well
> regarded. They also generally command a price over $150.
>
> Sigma made a 400//5.6 which I've only seen one of and have never seen
> a review of. I normally only search OM mounts so they may be more
> common in other mounts. (They have an 86mm filter ring and are a
> little under 5" long)
>
> There is a Vivitar S1 450/4.5 which gets almost insanely high prices.
> I expect this one will go for about $800.
> 220086456153
>
> Also as C.H. mentioned there are some faster Russian made mirror
> lenses. Search yaBe for rubinar and MTO then you will turn up some.
> The Rubinars were made for medium format cameras having a short film
> to flange distance. I believe both the Rubinar and MTO need an adapter
> with a lens element to work on most 35mm SLRs.
>
> You might have the best luck getting either a 500/8 or Sigma 600/8
> then putting one of the Katzeye Optics Plus screens in one of your
> digital bodies.
>
> I don't remember hearing of the Celestron 300/5.6 before seeing Jay's
> post. There are a number of "cheap" 300mm mirror lenses. Unless size
> is very critical I would be cautious.
>
> Rather than a catadioptric 350mm I think you would be happier with the
> Zuiko 300/4.5 unless you are fascinated with mirror lenses.
>
> -jeff
>
> On 3/2/07, Allen Coltrin <hjlantern@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, that is why the Tokina is last. My understanding is rthat Tamron is
> > just a bit below Zuiko. But I'm trying not to go into the 500mm/f5.8 area.
> > Do you know anyone with a 350mm or 400mm?
> >
> > Allen
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|