A few more comments on the big iron, for what it's worth.
>From: NSURIT@xxxxxxx
>
>As I put on my flame proof suit, I share my thought or perhaps my solution .
>. . Tamron SP 180mm f2.5, 300mm f2.8 & 400mm f4 with 1.4X and 2X converters
>for less $ than the one "Big White". Your question is a good one and my
>solution works for me. Bill Barber
Between my brother and I, we have the following:
Tamron 180/2.5 (two copies) - excellent lens, but not nearly as good as the
250 either with the Tamron or the Zuiko 1.4X. Had to go through four
copies of this lens to find two good ones. The other two were not sharp at
all - so be careful.
Zuiko 250 - solid gold. Best of the bunch.
Tamron 300/2.8 - superb lens. Almost as good as the 250 - and $$$$ cheaper.
Tamron 400/4 - also superb. Remarkable image quality.
Sigma 500/4.5 - very good also - probably the best 500 available in an OM
mount.
So, Bill's solution is a good one, but beware the Tamron 1.4 converter is
not as good as the Zuiko (I have both). I personally would avoid anyone's 2X.
>From: Skip Williams <om@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Hey, let's all go over to Steve's to "borrow" his 250/2. :-))
I suppose you'll want to borrow one of my M-1's to use it with, too.
>And my 2 cents on the big white monsters. Evaluate your photo subject
needs. If you more often shoot 250/350/500 than 350/~500/700, you'd be
advised to get the 250 and the 1.4x + 2x. Otherwise get the longer lens
and a Tamron 180/2.5 or 80-200/2.8 as a companion. Just be aware that both
the 250 and 350 are monsters. I sold mine years ago because it was too heavy.
Yes - you will need a good monopod (at a minimum) or decent tripod. I even
use a Bogen telephoto lens support when I have the time to set it up.
>From: Mike Veglia <msvphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>BTW, Gary Reese tested the 350/2.8 with both a 1.4XA and a 2XA. With the
>1.4XA it did very well (but not quite as well as without) and with the 2XA
>not so good (lots of "C" ratings IIRC). The 350/2.8 and 1.4XA he used for
>the tests is my battle worn 350/2.8. I have to believe the 250/2 would be
>about the same with these two converters (great with the 1.4XA but marginal
>with the 2XA).
Here are Gary Reese's tests of the 250 with 1.4X and the 350 for
comparison. I doubt you could tell the difference between photos taken by
either approach.
250mm f/2 Zuiko with Olympus 1.4x teleconverter (both multi-coated)
OM-4 w/ mirror and aperture prefire
Vignetting = C+ @ f/2, A- @ f/2.8
Distortion = moderate pincushion
Aperture Center Corner
f/2 (2.8) A- B
f/2.8 (4) A B+
f/4 (5.6) A A-
f/5.6 (8) A A-
f/8 (11) B+ B
f/11 (16) B+ B
f/16 (22) B+ B-
f/22 (32) B- C+
Notes: Moderate to moderately high contrast. Exceptional wide open
performance.
350mm f/2.8 Zuiko (multi-coated)
OM-4T with mirror and aperture prefire and additional monopod support on
camera
Vignetting = A- @f/2.8 (with slight underexposure), A thereafter
Distortion = none
Aperture Center Corner
f/2.8 B B+
f/4 B+ B+
f/5.6 A- A-
f/8 A- A-
f/11 A- A
f/16 B+ B+
f/22 B+ B+
f/32 B B
Notes: Very easy to focus on a 2-4 screen. Moderately high contrast at
f/2.8 and f/11; very high contrast images at f/4 to f/8; moderate
contrast images at f/22 and f/32.
Steve Troy
< 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 >
|