usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Thanks much, ?Moose.
> Understand the differences much better.? Suspect the 86 buck deal is unusual,
> but 30% lighter sounds good if the optics are comparable.? I also have a Z.
> 50-250 for a light kit in that range, but it is tough to hand hold 'cept in
> very good light and most often use it at hyperfocal distance as the bokeh can
> be?a?tad harsh.?
Ah, more lens options. May I add to the confusion?
I chose the Tokina 50-250/4-5.6 over the Zuiko 50-250/5 for one main
reason, macro. The Zuiko goes to 1:4, just not close enough for me. The
Tokina goes to a rather amazing 1:1.4.
However, it was the Tamron 60-300/3.8-5.4 that I ended up liking the
best. I think it's generally sharper, I like the extra reach and the
1:1.5 is still exceptional.
None of the three has a tripod mount, though.
> Suppose I should try and process my way out of the latter, as long as I can
> muster a fraction of your finesse.
>
Practice.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|