Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 8, 2009, 10:44 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
boBBrennan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, Texas USA
Posts: 3,565
Default

..............THAT !! I find very funny. hi hi hi hi hi, oh, I think it is LOL in this digital world.
boBBrennan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2009, 11:00 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
Holy [email protected], man(!)......that would be my last lens in this lifetime.....period, much less last Zuiko.

What a set of lenses you now own. You need an SUV to carry that bag for you.

The results are quite impressive.
The reason I'm done is I have no desire for additional lenses. This lens was my most wanted lens. I love telephoto; I love reach. Its a curse that it carries the price tag it does.

I'm different, I know, but I'd give up the 7-14 and 35-100 before the 300 as it stands now. The lens is a monster. It weighs much more than can be comfortably transported, not only because of it by itself, but you need a tripod capable of supporting its weight and a blind and chair if wildlife is a subject. Convienient it is NOT!

I have to admit, when I chose Olympus, I chose it because I wanted the reach, and the 300 was the main goal. I wanted the brightness because I wanted the extended reach of the teleconverters. The price was a huge hurdle, to say the least. If the car payment wasn't comming to an end, this lens wouldn't be in my possession.

I really do need to have my head examined, however.

Da other Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2009, 11:20 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boBBrennan View Post

I would recon................... and show me the dogs soon!
I have a feeling that most of the dog pics will still be from the ol' 50-200. I'm not going to be hand holding this thing much trying to catch pics of dogs flying around.

Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2009, 11:28 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarjTT View Post
Hi Greg

now you got me grinning like a chesire cat... I had to read the post twice in case I was reading it wrong! All I can say ...

Thats one superb lens collection u now have your mitss on!

Bring on the Sherpas!

Cheers

Harj
I guess I can't blame the equipment anymore

I have a feeling the Sherpa is out of the question, but perhaps I'll need a good chiropractor

Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2009, 11:34 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zig-123 View Post
Aw Geez Greg!

It's bad enough that you had to go and get one of these. BUT, did you have to go and show your first shots were of birds?

Seriously, congrats on getting a really fine lens. I hope you enjoy using it and be sure to post more..........

Zig
You know this is all on you, don't you

I need this lens just to keep up with you!

You keep 'em comming, and I'll keep trying to keep up with ya.

Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 8, 2009, 11:53 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
You know this is all on you, don't you

I need this lens just to keep up with you!

You keep 'em comming, and I'll keep trying to keep up with ya.

Greg

You keep up with me???

Greg, with your knowledge and now, this lens, all you'll have to do is press the shutter release and you'll blow away anything I can do !!

Of course, you might need to make arrangements to regularly see a chiropracter.

Zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2009, 8:42 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
TekiusFanatikus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 385
Default

This thread brings a multitude of emotions!

It starts off by having phenomenal pictures. Then, you check out what was used to take those pictures and that's when the fun starts.

I proceed to surf onto my reference site for buying lenses and look up the lens itself... profanity ensues after seeing the price tag. Then, looking at the stats of the lens, notice that it weights 3300 grams, 3.3kg and 7.x lbs... OMG, that's heavy!

I've been chuckling since then...
TekiusFanatikus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2009, 1:20 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TekiusFanatikus View Post
This thread brings a multitude of emotions!

It starts off by having phenomenal pictures. Then, you check out what was used to take those pictures and that's when the fun starts.

I proceed to surf onto my reference site for buying lenses and look up the lens itself... profanity ensues after seeing the price tag. Then, looking at the stats of the lens, notice that it weights 3300 grams, 3.3kg and 7.x lbs... OMG, that's heavy!

I've been chuckling since then...
Its not for everybody, most certainly.

I'm not sure you will agree with the link I'm going to post as a possible alternative....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...specifications

or

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...specifications

There is another site to peek at.

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/index.php

These guys are GOOD!!!! If you go to the forums and peek at most of the wildlife shots, 500mm & 600mm f4 lenses coupled with teleconverters are the norm. I'm not going to compare with their abilities. They are clearly better than I am, but I won't improve unless I start trying.

The 300 f2.8 isn't cheap. It was a leap for me to pull the trigger on this. The equipment these photographers use isn't chicken feed either. Its an area that is expensive to get into. Long, bright high quality lenses cost like hell and it may very well be Oly has the lowest entry cost.

In short, I not laughing at the financial aspects. I am smiling as my first impressions are just what I hoped for, and to be honest, they surpassed them a bit. The big Zuiko is alot like the 50 f2 in that I see little degrading when the Ec-14 is added (read that I can't see a difference).

I won't worry if you don't understand, but I thought is was worth an attempt.

Greg
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2009, 2:23 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
TekiusFanatikus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 385
Default

I was looking at $7900 in CND for the Zuiko, where as these are $11119.99 CDN!

And the Canon clocks in at 11.8 lbs too, almost 5 pounds more than the Zuiko!

*Picks up jaw off the floor*

Edit: saw the pics from the URL you provided. Talk about eye candy, the detail...

Last edited by TekiusFanatikus; Nov 9, 2009 at 2:37 PM. Reason: Found a price in CDN
TekiusFanatikus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2009, 5:02 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
boBBrennan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, Texas USA
Posts: 3,565
Default

........it is a really good thing I don't have a job any longer!!!

Because if I did have a job it would not be possible to sit here and 'look at pictures' like is found on naturescapes which gets that itch going about the tele-converter.

BUUUUTTTTT if I did have a job maybe I would scratch the itch right away.

I will never make photos like any seen on naturescapes, I just totally enjoy looking at them............ and maybe dreaming a little bit.
boBBrennan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:07 PM.