Sorry, not mean to say contrary words, but can't agree about digital
convertion. I know it is a easy job, but that doesn't mean it can
replace a superwide. Just like shift lens, you cannot say one can
digitally deform a picture so shift lenses are no use. In other words,
you can stitch two pictures so you don't need a wide angle.
I can agree with you about the high price of the Zuiko 18, but I can't
agree about replace it with a range finder, it works very differently.
The close up capability is different and you lost the accurate framing
capability of SLR. Adding another camera/lens is also not flexiable.
Just like many guy has mentioned the 24 shift is too expensive, you
better buy a 4x5 view camera, seems true, but I'm sure the 24 shift
will take ten times the pictures.
I'm now deciding my gears for next week's trip, which probable include
a OM4 (for ISO100 slide), OM2sp (for ISO400 negative), 21/2, 35 shift,
85/2, 75-150, a 2x convertor and a 28-48 mainly on the 2sp. I only
have room to add one lens (weight is also a problem), I'm considering
replace the 21/2 with 18/3.5+24/2. But I think it is hard to add a
third camera like Bessa plus the 15mm, also you need to decide which
film to put on it and this camera can only provide you 15mm
capability... very unflexable. If I have room for a third camera I
will put a OM body with B/W film side.
At last I found I can use the 21/2 as normal wide angle but the 18 is
really hard to control, 3mm different seems a lot to me.
My 0.002 cents.
C.H.Ling
Skip Williams wrote:
>
> (I'm going to say-as-I-do, for maximum CYA here)
>
> I'd get the 16/3.5 if you have the 21/3.5 and forego the 18/3.5. Why? I
> like to take immersive panoramas, and the images from the 16/3.5 are much
> easier to correct for stitching. If you REALLY need the extra 8 degrees of
> FOV, buying the 18/3.5 is a pretty expensive way to get it. You could also
> shoot pictures with the 16 and unwrap the fisheye effect digitally to get
> about the same FOV as an 18.
>
> Given that the 18/3.5 is $5-700, you could also get a used Voigtlander
> 15/4.5 for $3-350 and a Bessa-L body for $130-175 or another generic Russian
> LTM body for $40 and you have a 15mm lens and a body for less than the 18.
> I find that the difference between a 21 and a 15 is a useful difference. I
> can't see the extra 3mm difference between the 21 and the 18 REALLY making a
> lot of difference; especially enough to justify the cost if your budget is
> tight.
>
> Just my 2 cents though. Your milage may vary.
>
> Skip
>
< 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 >
|