I have the newer version, and I am very pleased with it. Yes, it is a
bit long when you zoom out, and it is heavy, even on an E3 body, but
the picture quality is worth it.
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com
Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog
On Oct 15, 2008, at 2:20 AM, <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
> 12-60 and original 14-54 (not SWD) are tested here:
> <http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/15>
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>> -------Original Message-------
>> From: John Hudson <OM4T@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [OM] Olympus ED 50-200mm f2.8/3.5 zoom
>> Sent: Oct 14 '08 12:22
>>
>>
>> Does anyone have any comments on the build quality and performance
>> of the
>> 50-200mm digital zoom?
>>
>> When measured against the images taken with the 12-60, 14-54 and
>> 11-22
>> lenses, would the quality of the image from the 50-200 compare less
>> than,
>> equally to or more favourably to those with any one of the three
>> lenses
>> mentioned?
>>
>> John Hudson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|