What about this CAT?
[ http://homepage3.nifty.com/3rdpartylens-om/ohnar300.htm ]
and
[ http://homepage3.nifty.com/3rdpartylens-om/Lens%20Test/ohnar300test.htm ]
So far, it's the only one I know with variable aperture!
The same website above is worth a visit as it shows a lot of 3rd party
lenses in OM mount compared to their Zuiko equivalents.
Needless to say, the Zuikos stand out of the crowd... :)
Watch out for that 90/2 and 18/3.5 tests!
Ciao!
Fabio
On 7/14/06, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Jeff Keller wrote:
> > .........
> > The lenses are fast enough to be focused fairly easy and have a short
> enough
> > focal length to be hand held, but I've never seen anyone promoting them
> as a
> > great lens. The Zuiko 300/4.5 isn't too large nor heavy. Even the Tamron
> SP
> > 60-300 is as fast as the little cat and not much more conspicuous.
> >
> As one who has owned and used all three at the same time, I have to say
> that the experience of using them is very different. The 350/.6 is much
> smaller and lighter than either the 300/4.5 or the 60-300. At first, it
> seems very freeing. Then I started to run into its limitations.
>
> In common with the longer cats, it has "unique" bokeh. It's not just the
> classic donut shaped highlights. other things get really "interesting"
> when used closer in and with subjects with a lot of depth to them. I
> rather like what the close focusing long lens has done for this shot,
> but note the double images of some elements and the edgy quality of some
> other OOF elements
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Garden04/pages/3649_16.htm>.
>
> F5.6 at 350 mm can be fine, other than the donuts, for shots where
> everything is out very close to infinity. For closer focusing distances,
> and it does focus quite close, or where the subject isn't all in one
> plane at right angles to the view of it, the DOF can be very shallow.
>
> It seems to me to be a lens that is only useful in relatively few
> situations, compared to the more conventional designs you mention.
> Somehow, I find the limitations of the 500 & 600 mm, f8 and 1000 f11
> cats less annoying than the 350. Perhaps it's the extra reach and lack
> of useful conventional alternatives at the longer fls, I'm not entirely
> sure. In any case, I still have the 300/4.5, 60-300 and long cats.
>
> I sold my 350/5.6 to Mike, to try out as a backpacking lens, for much
> less than the price you posted a link to. I seem to recall that he too
> found its unique optical characteristics too much to offset its great
> virtues of size and weight. Don't know if he sold it on or not.
> > .......
> > My comments about the size of the 300/4.5 being of reasonable size were
> > based on that it will easily fit in my backpack along with a handful of
> > lenses. My Tamron 400/4 won't. Also someone looking head-on at a 300/4.5
> > isn't going to see much difference from looking head-on at a 350/5.6. A
> cat
> > lens "shouts long telephoto". A 72mm glass element doesn't shout as loud
> ...
> > maybe this is more my own personal bias though.
> >
> Might work if subjects never see the lens at any other angle. Otherwise,
> the conventional lenses scream telephoto, where the 350/5.6 just looks
> odd. for stealth reach, I'd guess an OM 135 mm on an E-thingie would be
> great, small lenses with 270 mm reach.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|