Others have probably answered by now (I'm behind). That never stopped me
before :).
The 50-250 and the 65-200 are virtually idential from the weight and feel
perspective. When I pick on up, I actually have to look so see which one it
is. The big difference is that the 50-250 has more range (obvious, huh).
For my kids soccer, the 250 is particularly useful to get action on the
other side of the field and the 50 is perfect for action right in front of
you. For outdoor events, the f/5 vs. f/4 isn't critical.
So, if you have the 50-250, then the 65-200 may be unnecessary. If you
don't, but do have the 65-200, you have great lens!
Be prepared, though. The 50-250 goes for a lot!
Tom
> I'm trying to decide about an 85-250/5.0 lens... what are the differences
> between that and the 50-250/5.0 or the 65-200/4.0 lens? Are there enough
> distinct differences that I should have one of each, or should I have one
if
> each just because...?
>
> I gotta quit throwing out these softball questions!
> --
>
> Jim Brokaw
> OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|