If it's three you want to pack, you might try this combo:
24/2 or 2.8
35-105/3.5~4.5
135/2.8
The 35-105 is a bit bigger and heavier, but not really slower than the
other zooms and gives you 3X of focal length versus two. [f/3.5 is
1/3-stop faster than f/4; f/4.5 is 1/3-stop slower than f/4.] The jump
from 24mm to 35mm isn't that radical.
-- John
At 16:31 9/6/00 , you wrote:
>Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:03:06 -0700
>From: Gary Reese <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] Zuiko 24/f2.8 compared to the Zuiko 28/f2.8
>
>Gary writes:
>
>That is an extremely useful lens for landscapes, but you would probably
>discover yourself taking a 35-70mm zoom rather than a 35mm prime if you
>owned both. It becomes a matter of weight and available space.
>
>______________________________________________
>
>I was just thinking something along the same lines. For me, space is
>the
>primary consideration because I just don't want to lug around a lot of
>dead
>weight (thats why I got rid of my Nikon stuff!). In that regard, has
>anyone
>tried the Vivitar 17-35? I'm wondering if this would be an acceptable
>solution?
>
>I'm shooting for 3 lenses: a wide angle something, a 50, and the 75-150.
>
>Thanks
>
>Hal
< 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 >
|