The E-M1 II and Oly 100-400 lens didn't quite do it, but the OM-1 has done it. I'm finally convinced that this
over-size, over-weight body really does enough more, photographically, than my GX9s that I might as well get used to it.
Then what do I do when I don't want to carry two bodies and the bazooka lens? The Panny 14-140 has been my choice for
that. It's great on the non IBIS GM5, and fine on a GX9, but it doesn't really match the new capabilities of the OM-1.
The obvious answer, for tele-Moose, is the Oly 12-200. Reviewer after reviewer says they like it, but it's perhaps not
quite optically good enough, esp. at the long end and in the corners.
Used ones are thin on the ground; not many actually sold? or folks like and keep them? A few direct comparisons to the
14-150, subject, of course, to the vagaries of individual examples.
Ming Thien's review mentioned exceptional flare resistance. Some examples in a DPReview forum, with things like bare
tree limbs in the corners, etc. showed them to be very similar - until the sun is in the corner at widest FL, then
contrast and detail fall dramatically on the 14-150. The 14-150 II probably fixes that, with Nano coatings.
So, I took a chance on a clean used one from B&H; I can return it if it doesn't do the job. I haven't done that much
with it so far. But it sure looks like 200 mm is fine, at least after processing, which is what matters to me.
C-U is also important to me. This lens shares with the 12-100/4 closest focus at 12 mm, rather than the long end. I
tried the Sigma Achromatic Macro Lens AML 72-01, but the result was disappointing. Then the Pentax T-132 did a great
Looks like this may be my new casual zoom. It's a great match to the OM-1 in
looks and in the hand.
GAS is Us Moose
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/