Thank you, Jim.
Oops, I can feel a WTB coming on...
John.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Couch" <jamesbcouch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Equipment
> The one that I owned did not impress me in the least. I agree that it was
too
> long, I also did not care for the balance. Mine was not particularily
sharp, and
> did not perform as well as my 75-150. That could be the specific lens I
had, I
> know others have been happy with them. I found it difficult to hand hold
and get
> good results. It also did not work real well for tripod usage, because of
the
> length and lack of a tripod ring. The 'nail in the coffin' so to speak for
this
> lens was when I was aquired an 85-250 (thanks Tom!) two touch, better
balance,
> tripod ring, much wider range, and a lot sharper lens. (Of course it also
cost a
> lot more!) Now I will admit part of this might be that I have never really
cared
> for single touch zooms, but IMHO the 75-150 or 85-250 are better lenses.
YMMV
>
> Jim Couch
>
> John Wheeler wrote:
> > Now, talking of zooms, what does the list think of the 100-200/f5? I
find it
> > a little too long physically but it does seem to have reasonable
sharpness.
< 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 >
|