On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Mike Lazzari
<watershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Save your money. The relatively small size and low price make it
> attractive and it really does perform well for this price point. However
> the 50-200 + 2x or 14x is much better.
That's about what I decided a year or so ago when I was considering
it. A lighter alternative to the 50-200 really is attractive for a
lot of the shooting I like to do, but I'm working around it in other
ways. I guess I'm saving for the faster 50-200. Actually, my son
starts college this fall. I'm definitely in make-do mode. :(
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|