Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/12/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Howard Cummer wrote: > I have the opportunity to pick up a 250 f4.o > Telyt to augment the telephoto set above and I am wondering if I > should. I am getting all this telephoto fire power to take wild life > pictures in Bali and Australia. > What do you all think? TIA This is going to be one of those YMMV answers. To begin with, I find the 250mm focal length on a full frame camera to be about the shortest lens I can generally use for wildlife photos. Assuming the loss of auto-aperture doesn't bother you (as evidenced by your 90 'cron & 180 APO)... my experience is with the late version of the 250mm Telyt: rotating tripod mount, E67 filters, good minimum focus distance. I didn't consider the first version because I depend on the rotating tripod mount (early version has a fixed tripod mount) and the first version's 4.5-meter near focus limit would be a major nuisance for my work. The late 250's optical performance is good but not spectacular. Its worst behavior is either lateral chromatic abberation or bokeh that can tend toward harsh at times. Color saturation and flare resistance are its best qualities, and the handling is quite good too. Given that I value the auto-aperture feature, I'd also consider the 300mm Nikkor ED AIS, either IF or, if you can find one, the earlier non-IF model. Except for bokeh & minimum focus distance, the non-IF ED lens will out-perform the 250; the IF model's optical performance isn't quite as good but will be comparable to the Telyt, and will focus closer than the non-IF model too. Aside from the auto-aperture the handling of these Nikkors isn't as good as the Telyt mostly due to the placement or stiffness of the focussing ring. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com