I looked up a review of the Oly 300/4 lens and it does get a lot of
praise. But, I think I would take your route using the 100-400 if I
were to go for a long lens improvement. There are some interesting ones
on the used market these days.
My current toy is a used Oly 50/2.0 Macro that arrived yesterday. I'll
hold off on the long lens decision.
On 5/7/20 2:35 PM, Moose wrote:
On 5/7/2020 7:32 AM, Jim Nichols wrote:
After seeing the detail in your image with the 100-400, I went back
and tried all of my post-processing tricks on another image, and the
details are just not there.
Yup
Here is the best I could do.
http://www.gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/20200506-P5061444.JPG.html
Nice improvement, but still, no cigar. :-)
I agree with you. I may reconsider the 100-400.
In fairness, I should mention that there are an Oly 300/4 lens and a
Panny 200/2.8 with 1.4x teleconverter (=280 mm) out there. My guess is
that the first is likely better than the 100-400, at its single FL and
the Panny with extender as good, but I have no way to know.
My general experience has been that FL wins, with subjects smaller
that frame filling.
I'm simply uninterested in such single FL lenses for general use. It's
pretty frustrating having 300 mm, when I need 200.
As far as shooting the moon goes, resolution is ultimately limited by
atmospheric movement. I've shot it with a 1000/11 mirror lens, and I
don't think I captured more detail than in this shot. I looked at
combining exposures for more detail. Stacking shots in layers and
flipping between them, whole section of the surface MOVED between
shots. It's refraction through moving cells of air.
Zoomy Moose
--
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
