The tale of the tape. This evening I shot a baseball assignment with the
new Canon EOS 300mm f2.8 image stabilizer and compared it with the Zuiko
350mm f2.8 lens.
Now grant it, I shot a baseball game and a Baseball game is a little easier
to shoot than let say a football game.
Advantage of the auto-focus- you can focus fast w/o really looking into the
view finder, if that makes any sense. In baseball your trying to catch the
peak action and if your into sports photography you will know what I mean by
this.
CON- The auto-focus has a tendency to back focus, so you really have to ask
yourself if the subject is really in true focus.
Example: sometimes it would focus on the grass just before the player or the
sign on a fence, but quickly recovered when re-focused. So what I am
saying is , you can't totally rely or trust the auto-focus to be in focus.
Now the 350mm f2.8 I've been shooting was mounted on a Canon EOS 1n body and
not the same evening and because I used the 350 on a Canon body I truly
believe my percentages of usable frames increased when shooting night games
because of the brighter viewfinder and of course the faster flash sync, when
I choose to use my flash. (not allowed in some sports for obvious reasons)
As far as image quality I think the Zuiko 350mm produces as good or better
image than the Canon 300 f2.8 IS. I didn't really feel like I really got a
higher percentage of shots with the auto-focus, but again, it was a baseball
game and it was my very first time using the lens.
The fast booster made the camera feel like it was one of those new Corvettes
with all the RPM stuff. You can eat alot of film with that happy trigger,
which I feel is a waste.
Bottom line is quality versus quantity... Take your pick a 69 Corvette or a
year 2000 Vette.
Sam....
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|