08-02-2016, 08:03 PM
So far, I don't find the Oly specs hotter than X-T2's. But I don't know much about Olympus, except I find a crop factor of 2 slightly too much. Specs aside, I think both target the same user group and might be slightly different, but in general both have good glass available and there won't be huge gaps in performance, no?
If it comes to 200-500 vs. 150-600, Dave had the same decision to do by deciding between Tamron or Sigma. I think, he did the best (and heaviest and least versatile, but highest quality) decision by going second hand genuine prime. Especially now, since Professionals throw their old 500 / 600 / 800 on the market to get the new, lighter, better and more expensive versions.
As for the 300: I have that PF E version and like the lightweight very much, but need to be careful with shutter speeds around 1/160 and 1/250. The VR has some weak spots there, I believe.
If it comes to 200-500 vs. 150-600, Dave had the same decision to do by deciding between Tamron or Sigma. I think, he did the best (and heaviest and least versatile, but highest quality) decision by going second hand genuine prime. Especially now, since Professionals throw their old 500 / 600 / 800 on the market to get the new, lighter, better and more expensive versions.
As for the 300: I have that PF E version and like the lightweight very much, but need to be careful with shutter speeds around 1/160 and 1/250. The VR has some weak spots there, I believe.