The weight versus quality (and aperture) is the one thing I 'fight myself'
over the most. Part of me wants to stick with the smaller lens, ie 24/2.8,
28/2.5&3.5, 35/2.8, etc because they're little, light and fit the Olympus
mold so well. The other part (left brain, right brain perhaps) loves the
qualities of the faster lenses, 24/2, 28/2, 35/2, etc. The zooms make it
even worse. I love the little 35-70/3.5-4.5. I took it on a short business
trip just yesterday. Another part of me lusts after the 35-80/2.8. Bigger,
heavier, faster, and, from what I hear, wonderful images.
The biggest challenge is that my wallet says it's crazy to have them all. A
middle of the road solution would be to alternate, 21/2, 24/2.8, 28/2.8,
35/2. My head says: 'reasonable solution', my heart says 'no way you're
selling those'. An even more reasonable solution would be to recognize that
you don't even need every focal length.
The challenge now is that I already have them and it's easier to buy then
sell. Heck, right now I even have some duplicates, like multiple 24/2.8 and
35/2 lenses. That I have no problem solving (and will offer to the list
soon). I even have a couple of silvernoses that I like just because they
look so cool.
It's a disease, I tell ya, and it's a bad one.
Tom
> Giles writes to Tom S.:
>
> << Your aversion to the larger of these zooms - does taht mean you are
> no
> longer looking for a 35-80/2.8 ? ;-) >>
>
> One can call this the "inverse law of Zuiko petiteness." Within most
> focal lengths of Zuikos, there is a trade-off in image rendering ability
> for weight reduction. As soon as ones breaks free of their desire to
> have a light weight system, potential image quality goes up.
>
> There is a confounding effect here, also. It is that the heavier Zuikos
> are also the more expensive ones.
>
> Gary Reese
> Las Vegas, NV
>
> <
< 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 >
|