If you need a longer reach you may consider other alternatives such as a
superzoom compact. The OM 500mm is a fine lens, if I have to use full frame
with a long reach, it is my only choice. The image quality is good but focus
is slow. Here are some samples but all on tripod.
http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/OMC/500_01/OM500mm_1.htm
It is better than the OM 300/4.5 as there is no color fringe.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hughes" <timhughes@xxxxxxxx>
I have always avoided reflex lenses, because of the well known bad bokeh
and lower contrast issues.
However, they have huge advantages in size and weight over conventional
lenses and don't suffer from out of focus color fringing. I was traveling
last year and was thinking that maybe a reflex lens, makes sense for
travel.
With a high ISO setting on my A7R they might even be handholdable as they
are not long,heavy and unwieldly.
The OM lens weighs about 20oz and some of the current generic reflex
lenses are even lighter.
Gary Reese's tests on the OM 500m/F8 showed it has quite good resolution
and I seem to remember he was even more enthusiastic about it in actual
use. Nikon and Canon both made similar lenses of the era.
They go for less $ used, but also weigh more than the OM. Minolta and Sony
had an AF reflex lens, which would work on my A7 with AF adapter and Sony
even sold it up to a few years back. It tends to cost more and weighs
more.
Any experiences with these lenses would be appreciated,especially the OM
lens as it is lighter and compact.Please don't waste bandwidth on the bad
bokeh of reflex lenses, we all know that!
I seem to remember John H. said to beware of possible delamination
issues,which are common on some of the cemented elements?
Tim
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|