In either case, don't forget the 400 speed film to take the edge off of the
camera shake...
My personal choice would be the 24-200, assuming the 24 is really 24.
Surprising how often that length comes in handy.
-Mickey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Lawrence" <mlawrence@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:52 PM
Subject: RE: [OM] 24-200? or 28-300mm?
> > Albert [mailto:olympus@xxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> > The Tokina 24-200mm, or Tamron's new 28-300XR? Of course
> > that'd be for the gf, I'd use the OM.
>
> For the travel I have done most photography on (Bali),
> I would chose the 24-200. However, Kuta, Bali for me is (narrow)
> street and lane scenes and candids, where that 24 would be
> quite useful, and the 200 more than sufficient to zoom
> across to the other side of the street (FWIW, I get most use
> out of my 20-35 and just take my camera out with that -
> those familiar with Kuta would understand why wide can
> be useful in these tiny-shop-lined, narrow bikeways/pathways),
> and if you head into the hills, the rice paddies and mountain
> scenes that you might want to zoom in on instead of
> "wideangling" them would likely sufficiently be done with
> the 200 maximum (these aren't "rules" - just my Bali
> experience where I could rarely see needing that 300. Someone
> else might have a whole different approach and interest).
>
> Oh, and as a contradiction to this, the wider angles can
> be more difficult for p&s'ers to use most effectively, as
> you often need to get in much closer than you're use to.
> I've jammed the 20-35 pretty close to the face of friends,
> and they've sworn that the photo wouldn't turn out because
> it was too close. It has, of course (well, sometimes -
> sometimes when I'm shooting quick I just take a punt on
> focus and I get somewhat random results then :-) )
>
> As Richard says, there's quite a few variables. Remembering
> the "camera-shake" problem with long lenses, you might want
> to reduce the chance of that my limiting the lens length.
> If you're going somewhere super-sunny (like Kuta,Bali :-) )
> then this is possibly not a big problem.
>
> I used my dad's Pentax MZ5n with his Sigma 28-200 once (testing
> it after repair). Having friends up from Melbourne, and visiting
> the usual Sydney sights, the photos turned out quite good, and
> even an 8x12" blow-up was quite satisfactory for the type of
> photo taken. I'd honestly not dismiss adding one of these
> "superzooms" to my Canon stable for the next Bali holiday,
> particularly that 24-200. Although the optical quality might
> not be the best, there is a reduction in the importance of that
> for me in the resultant candid photos of friends having fun in
> Kuta, and that one-camera-one-lens while spending the day out
> shopping is a huuuge convenience (perhaps a more likely candidate
> would be an optically better 24-105, which I think might be
> sufficient in length ). Of course, if taking pictures of temples
> and landscape-type stuff where I might want maximum sharpness,
> I might not be so enamoured of the "superzoom" lens (but I'd
> still take my other lenses and cameras over to Bali, so I'd
> use that if knowing the (photo-) plans for that day).
>
> Does that (not) answer your question? ;-)
>
> Okay, simple answer/opinion - 24-200 based on what you've told
> us so far here and elsewhere in relation to your gf's usage and
> the availability of your better optics.
>
> Cheers
> Marc
> Sydney, Oz
>
> < 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 >
|