Well a true zuikoholic needssss.... I'm mean desires them both.
I went with the 14-54 ~27-104 range. 11-22 ~ 21-42 is more specialized
range, but if you need 21 more than 27 equivalent, you gotta have it.
The 14-54 is very versatile and does some pretty good macro. Although
the working distance is poor, the lens hood can block light on the
subject at close focus. If you get the 50-200, get the extension tube
to go with it. You can do some reasonable macro with much greater
working distance. The tripod mount on the 50-200 flexes a bit too much
though.
\A/yne
At 04:24 AM 8/19/2004, you wrote:
>Hi:
>
>I had to check it (E1) out. Why do I like you people? So I may (might) join
>the digitites. I have questions- I checked out the 3 zooms. 11-22, 14-54 and
>the 50-200. The 50-200 is a buy, but of the other two which would be the
>best? I like wide, so I was thinking the 11-22, but that would leave a gap.
>Is the 11-22 superior to the 14-54? Would I be better off to get the 14-54,
>giving up the wider focal length but gaining the normal to moderate tele?
>Any advice on best prices would be good.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|