There are some great cameras in the world. Some...like an Olympus OM...have
the mysterious power to capture your heart. But, no matter what anyone says
or how much he or she pretends it isn't so, NOTHING equals a Leica in sheer
elegance, feel and quality.
(Well...THAT should set off an argument or two. Hee-hee!).
Craig
inal Message -----
From: "Michael Stephens" <mike1964@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 1:05 PM
Subject: RE: [OM] 28/2 - first impressions
> Doesn't Leica have a really nice variable focal length lens
> for the rangefinders (like 28, 35, 50 or thereabouts) that does
> exactly that? And of course if I remember correctly it was pricey
> (like $2500 or $3k); it was however, a ~4.0 aperture, but it was
> constant. Saw it at a trade show last year - it was really nice
> - and the rangefinder focusing on the M6 was amazing.
>
> {OM content} Comparatively, the 35-70/f2.8 Zuiko with an OM-3Ti
> or OM-4Ti is a bargain!
>
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Craig Roberts
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 11:13 AM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [OM] 28/2 - first impressions
>
>
> So, I guess if you live in the Himalayas, you'd need a 16mm fisheye, eh?
>
> Personally, I think the 28mm is the most useful general purpose wide angle
> focal length. A 35mm is too close to a 50mm and doesn't really give good
> coverage of room interiors, etc....so what's the point? A 28mm does
produce
> good coverage, though, but doesn't distort obviously like a 24 does. A
35mm
> makes a terrific "normal" lens, however...and a 35 and 90 combination is
> really useful. Y'know, somebody ought to come up with some kind of
variable
> focal length lens that would focus at both 35 and 90 and everwhere in
> between. I'll betcha you could make a gazillion dollars with that idea.
I
> think I'll work on it...
>
> Craig R.
> Boston (the home of great thinkers)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Olaf Greve" <ogreve@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 10:19 AM
> Subject: [OM] 28/2 - first impressions
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > >Olaf, I agree with you entirely. I love both lenses, but it seems to
me
> > >that the 28 is just on the fringe of "normal" whereas the 24 is over
the
> > >brink. I just can't really explain it.
> >
> > Yes. Indeed it seems you have a similar opinion about these lenses as I
> > do...
> >
> > >Out west the 24 is invaluable. On my recent trip to Utah I had both
the
> 28
> > >and 24 and used them, but the 24 got a lot more use. Where I live, in
> > >flatter country, the 28 is much more useful to me.
> >
> > Maybe that's it!
> > Guess in which country my 24mm had seen most of its use? Yes, in The
> > Netherlands. Now guess which is one of the few countries in the world
> where
> > there are no mountains.....................;)))
> >
> > >It's like a sassy 35.
> >
> > Hmmmm, interesting way of putting it... Can't say I've got much
experience
> > with the 35mm focal length though, so I'll take your word on it...
> >
> > Cheerio!
> > Olafo
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
> >
> > < 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 >
>
>
> < 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 >
>
>
>
> < 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 >
< 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 >
|