PCACala@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Hi George:
>
><SNIP>
>
> > I notice you've got nothing longer than 100. Is that a decision based
> > on your way of seeing? just curious.
>
> See my previous posting. Yup, it is apparently ingrained as the result of
> almost 30 years of photography in which I seldom had anything longer than 100
> mm. I had a 200 mm f/4 Zuiko for the last decade, but it seldom got used.
> Just too heavy. I'll see if things are any different now with a lighter 200
> mm f/5 and with practice looking for the long view. However, I did live for
> two years across a canyon from a seasonal waterfall. It needed a LONG lens to
> really capture its beauty, which wasn't photographable from its base. I
> finally shot it early this summer with a Canon 300 mm f/5.6 (with and without
> a Canon 2XA teleconverter). The camera apparently got set aside and I just
> saw the results yesterday. Bingo, I see the possibilities! I'm always
> wanting to get too close.
>
> Gary Reese
> Las Vegas, NV
>
I see. Yes, weight can be a problem for sure.
As for the waterfall, don't you have a Zuiko at your disposal you could
get that shot with <G>!
--
george :>)
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|