Re: [OM] 24-200? or 28-300mm?

[Winsor Crosby]

> I`d recomend nothing more than 28-90mm, with as wide apperture as
> possible. This focal leghts are most ease of use, and so most promising to
> get good results for most joy and a good experience when the first 
> films come back. -By the way- What lenses are you currently using? -
> Did you have a good /bad start into photograpy?
> Don`t confuse with your further needs and your gf`s ones.
>
> My beginner experience with a 4-5.6/60-300 zoom is like this:
>  Ah fine '135mm @ 1/250sec wide open' so I can zoom in to '200mm and 
> 1/200 sec'
>  Hmm, a bit closer would be fine ... Yeah -Klack-
>  Ooops, shit again I went to 280mm @ 1/125sec ....
>
> Nothing to blame the lens for I got a lot of nice shoots with this
> lens, but 10 years later I'm converted to prime except for a 35-105.
>
>
> Just my two ...
>
> Frieder Faig
I agree completely.  Even 35-70 or 80.  If you need to get closer use 
your built in close up attachments,  walk.
Short telephotos are sometimes compared favorably with primes for 
quality.  I think that never happens with the 28 to 200 ilk.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California


< 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 >