The 100mm f2 is somewhat heavy with all that glass, Lars, but it's also
reasonably compact and so combines with a 4T/MD2 for easy balance and
handling. Its optics are superior and for an appropriate subject I can't
imagine anything better out there qualitywise. However, it is a fixed focal
length in the tele range and thus considered here to be a somewhat
special-purpose lens.
What I need (well, what I've wanted but never bought) is a 21/2, which
would represent the next logical step downward from my 28/2. Instead I've
made do with the 24/2.8, a more than decent performer in its own right but
kind of close to the 28 in terms of field of view. The 21 would afford a
little more spread for scenics, but the truth is even if I did own a 21 I'd
probably still use my 28 more--around town, leastways.
I'm with you on the 35-70/3.6, both in terms of its general utility and a
desire to have the 35-80 in its stead. No money for that exchange either,
alas, and so the former is habitually found attached to one of my 4Ts,
usually as my Tri-X eye with a yellow in front.
My other most-used lens would be a 50mm, usually a 1.2 and sometimes two of
these at once, though occasionally I'll pick up my 1.4, which I bought a
couple years ago from a list member on a lark.
As noted above, at times I'll have a couple of 50's attached to my bodies
simultaneously in order to serve different films. I mention this for a
reason. Try as I might (try as I have) I have never been able to understand
comments like "ordinary perspective" when ascribed to 50mm lenses. Of
course the perspective of these lenses is "ordinary," or close to it. These
lenses are _supposed_ to be ordinary in their perspectives, as most
pictures one is likely to make come from ordinary scenes. My advice to
everyone is to use these lenses often, assuming you own them. They will do
good work in most situations. Or, to put it another way, if you do not use
a 50mm lens you'll likely miss a lot of good "ordinary" pictures along the
way. Honest.
(Sheesh! <g>)
Don't know why, but I rarely use my 40mm. It's useful enough, basically
serves the place of my original 35mm, which I no longer own. It is tiny in
its dimensions, light as a feather and fast; it renders very clear images.
Still, this little peach never seems to get picked first when I reach for a
lens. (Well, not as often, at least.)
Anyway, in my case it's typically the 28/2, 50/1.2 and 35-70/3.6 for
walking-around purposes.
Tris
>my 3 lenses would be:
>
>24/2, 100/2 and the 35-70/3.6 zoom.
>
>The 24/2 is a wonderful lens - fast and sharp - that has had a place in my
>bag for more than 10 years. The 100/2 is fast and sharp and has a nice
>semi-macro function. But it is heavy.
>The 35-70/3.6 is the best of the zooms, I think (If you don't have the
>35-80/2.8, which I don't). The front doesn't turn, which is nice with a
>polarizer filter and the lens shade is more effective on this zoom.
>
>I guess I take about 90 % of my pictures with those 3 lenses - which means I
>have an embarrassing number of Olympus lenses that I use way too little.
>
>A more lightweight combination would be the 24/2.8, 35-70/3.5.-4.5 (or a 40
>mm) and the 85/2, which is a very nice lens, much lighter than the 100/2.
>
>Lars
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|