On 25 Mar 2005, at 20:21, Moose wrote:
> Thomas Clausen wrote:
>
>> I have, and use, both, moose. The 24/2.8 is a great little gem, and it
>> goes well with the 100/2.8 or 85/2.0 in a "49mm kit". On the other
>> hand, the 24/2 pairs well with a 55/1.2 and 135/2.8 in a more heavy
>> "55mm kit" ;) Add the appropriate longer, shorter and intermediate
>> focal-lengths with corresponding 49 and 55mm filter sizes, as is
>> appropriate for your level of zuikoholism ;)
>>
>>
> I just don't use filters much. So many of the things they do can be be
> duplicated more easily in my digital work flow. The big exceptions are
> the 81 series filters, where filtering out excessive UV before is
> messes
> up the color is still usefull and polarizers. However, many of the
> polarizer sky effects can be easily duplicated digitally both without
> the variation with angle or the loss of film speed.
>
> You can tell I don't shoot slides and view them without digital
> intermediation, can't you? :-)
>
...and you can probably tell, that if I for some reason has a
color-film in my camera, it's slide -- and it's destined to be
projected, not scanned ;)
Polarizers are necessary for my workflow...
>> I have no experiences with Zuiko's wider than 24mm, so I am at a loss
>> when it comes to commenting on the 21/2 vs 21/3.5.
>>
>>
> How can you consider yourself a true Zuikoholic without an 18.3.5? :-)
>
Ahmm....I've already been told once this week to hand in my
"Zuikoholics Anonymous" membership card, so it seems to be a popular
opinion on this list that I'm *not* a true zuikoholic ;)
>>> I do have the 28/2 and it is indeed very nice. I also have a 35/2.8,
>>> but
>>> only as a sort of place holder, as I almost never use a 35mm prime,
>>> that's mostly zoom country for me
>>>
>>>
>> To me, the problem with the 28/2 is, that it is not a 55mm filter
>> thread. Don't get me wrong, I like "small" as much as the next guy,
>> but
>> I'd occasionally like to toss a 28mm in my 55mm kit without having to
>> carry along an extra pol-filter.
>>
> 49-55mm step-up ring. When using it in a 55mm kit, just leave the ring
> on the lens and use a 55mm cap. Well, you would need an appropriate
> 55mm
> screw in hood, too.
>
Ahh, but I am a KISS-guy. You see, each additional component adds a
point-of-failure, which must be backed up with appropriate redundancy.
For some of the (non-photography) stuff I do, a failure can be
life-threatening and redundancy (when it could be avoided) has its own
set of similarly bad inconveniences/consequences. Such tends to rub off
on other aspects in life, including photography ;)
So step-up rings are, in my book, to be avoided. Also, it's a
convenient excuse for having 49mm and 55mm versions of every lens, no?
:)
>> It seems to me that the 28/2.8 is a
>> better option: excellent optical performance and often a very
>> reasonable price. And with a 28mm, the 35mm does become (in all other
>> than the Zuikoholic sense of the word, of course) superfluous.
>>
>> I rarely use zooms, btw., with the 28-48mm being the notable exception
>> here ;)
>>
>>
> For me, there are two different ranges of shooting. When by myself,
> with
> photography as the agenda and plenty of time, I enjoy primes. In the
> many other situations where photography isn't the primary goal,
> especially where other person(s) are involved, I like the way zooms
> allow me to both get the shots and meet the social and time
> constraints.
>
Ohh, but I agree. For those kind of social situations (which do not
involve other Zuikoholics), I carry a Pentax Optio S4 ;)
> Even on a walk by myself, and where time isn't a constraint,
> photography
> may not be the primary goal, but I would like to be able to shoot the
> occasional interesting subject. For that, a modest mid-range zoom keeps
> things light and simple. An OMPC and 35-70/3.5-4.5 is perfect for this,
> a small, light package with exposure smarts that let me be a bit dumber
> for the moment.
I am constantly surprised by how well the simple ESP of the OM-40
actually works. I spent a weekend in London in '01 with an OM40 and the
28/3-85/2 combo, and Kodakchrome 25 in the camera body. Flying
fully-automatic, only one or two shots were off (metering-wise) --
bravo for such a relatively primitive exposure system.
(Again, this goes to my theory that "100000 3D matrix-metering"
marketing slogan of some camera manufacturers is bull****)
>
>> Here with me me, the 28/2 lives happily in a small bag with the 85/2
>> --
>> both kinda odd cousins in the Zuiko-family in that they're /2, but
>> 49mm. Nice lenses otherwise (the 85/2 is among my favorites, and one
>> of
>> the much overlooked gems in the Zuiko line-up, in my humble opinion).
>>
>>
> Yes, the 85/2 is a great lens. The funny thing about this combo is that
> they are almost exactly the same size and weight, in spite of the very
> different focal lengths.
>
Yes. Toss in a T18 flash (almost same size) for fill-in flash and a
body, and one is actually set up with very compact and very powerful
equipment.
>> But I never was much of a wide-angle-person, so take the above with a
>> grain of salt.
>>
> I have the same problem. I'm always reaching for the macro or long lens
> to isolate that small part of the whole visual field that catches my
> attention.
>
Heh, I believe that we covered that topic while having lunch with Jim
last year (it was last year, no?), didn't we? :) If I recall correctly,
Jim is a passionate 21/2-user? :)
--thomas
> Moose
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|