Joel wrote:
>Yes, folks, I have seen Vert and Toky in their innertube-wrapped glory...
I forgot to warn you that now that you've seen Vert, I must kill you.
>snipping the part about Joel's feats of tripod-wielding strength and
>swiftness, from which he is still recovering...
Last time I carried a 3221 through the woods it took three weeks to get the
dents out of my shoulder.
>Maybe if he hadn't kept calling it his "Varimaggotfinder." I was pretty
>impressed with the diopter for his IS-3 (which he didn't bring; next time,
>eh, Ken?). Amazing what that thing will do on a lowly 75-150, with no
>light loss.
Actually, the closeup diopter was for the IS-1, which shares the same 49mm
filter ring size. The IS-3's is 55mm. For low contrast subjects where
you can shield the lens from direct light (so it doesn't flare) the diopter
is wonderful. I'll bring the IS-3 when we meet at the prairie.
>He actually *apologized* to his OM-2S before putting the Sigmoid on his
>apparently hitherto unbesmerched OM-2S. Geesh.
It was a Sigma virgin up to that point. I've been hearing wierd arguments
coming from my camera bag the last couple of nights. I'm not sure what
those Zuikos are saying, but I've made out the words "slut" and "round heels".
>>I did show him Vert and Toky. I guess he never saw a lens with a hunk of
>>bicycle innertube around it before.
>
>And I forgot to ask what size innertube, because I'm gonna put some on my
>2X-A.
It was a 3cm chunk out of an old mountain bike innertube. I put one on
both Vert and Toky because the tripod mounting ring from my busted
Soligar-400 was slightly larger than the teleconverters. The thickness of
the innertube made the difference AND prevented the tightening screw of the
mounting ring from digging into the lens barrels. Besides, it makes the
teleconverters easier to grip when your hands are damp or when you are
wearing gloves.
>Ken said he thinks the 100/2.8 is the greatest 100mm lens in the world. I
>hadn't realized that it is so deft and light. It's barely a mm longer than
>my 85/2. Later I saw a couple wedding shots from Ken's portfolio, one
>taken with the 100/2.8 and another with his MF camera. I couldn't tell the
>difference. But mostly I was just dazzled by his artistry.
Thanks for the kind comment. Joel is no slouch at taking pictures either.
If it wasn't for the focussing mistake in the MF shot, I'd forget which was
which. The 100/2.8 is definitely my "signiture" lens. I think what I like
about it is its warmth and smoothness (tonality?). What I fear most in
going to another system is losing this lens. Maybe the flare-prone
single-coating half eaten by fungus isn't that bad of a thing after all.
Joel was using the 50/3.5 Macro which has got me seriously thinking about
picking up one of those and maybe the 90/2. Of course, if I did that, I'd
also need a new OM-4Ti to use as a rear-element cap, a macro lighting
setup, 24/2, 350/2.8...
Maybe dual systems isn't that bad of an option, but how do I convince Karen
of that?
Ken (soon to go into acquisition mode once this unemployment thing is over)
Norton
Kenneth E. Norton
Image66 Photography, Broadcast Consulting and Audio Engineering
image66@xxxxxxx
(515) 791-2306
< 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 >
|