Thanks Cotty,
Sounds like what I want. Weight is not a problem - its more if its convenient to work with and there big lenses do differ. Some being outright awkward but I think from your description this is what I want. I'm not quite small myself, my family were from northern Scandinavia and carrying stuff is what one was brought up with having no roads for long stretches and nice lakes for fishing in. Have used big glass like mf 500mmf5.6 and like a good tripod also.
Cheers,
Ronald
Cotty wrote:
On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed:
Do you rate the 200/2.5 as easy to work with as a 135 mm or 200/f4 lens (manual focus)?
Understood Ron. I would say that it is appreciably heavier than the 135 or the 200/4 so that may slow you down a bit. Depends. I am big of frame and sturdy of leg (!) and heavy gizmos don't phase me but I wouldn't like to hand-hold that monster much under 1/250th. No tripod mount means you're on your own there. If only you could get to see one before you buy, but I realise that's usually impossible when sourcing less than common gear.
Sure it's fast, as fast as you can turn the large grippy focus ring. It is a super lens, but it is heavy. The hood is big enough to bivouac two in an emergency and the case has tandem axles and full electrics.
If you can get one at a good price i would say go for it, you certainly won't be disappointed.
HTH
Cheers, Cotty
___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
