----- Original Message -----
From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, 16 January, 2006 04:10 PM
Subject: [OM] Re: Calling for opinions on the 7-14 Zoom
> Gord's friend wrote me off list to ask about the 7-14, since it was no
secret that I had one. In the event others have similar questions, and just
to clog up the digest, I'll post here my response. I don't think Gord's
friend will mind.
Gord's friend does not mind at all. In fact he is most appreciative of the
helpful comments and observations both on and off list.
What is more it seems that Gord and his friend might be enjoying a wee dram
together sometime later in 2006 and taking time out to talk about things
Olympus..
jh
>
> "Please pardon the tardy reply. I was away from civilization for the
weekend and
> only this morning started reading three days' worth of e-mail.
>
> "I'm sure you read Jeff's post about the 7-14, and there's really not much
I can
> add. It was the lens that finally pushed me over the fence, because the
lack of
> a good WA was what I saw as the biggest drawback to digital, at least for
me.
> Although I may not use it as much as some other lenses, a good really wide
lens
> is essential to me. At least two of my TOPEs were shot with the 21/2
Zuiko and
> another with the 17/3.5 Tamron.
>
> "The 7-14 is big and heavy, and indeed does have a big, domed front
element that
> is afforded only scant protection by the permanently affixed hood. It is
also
> expensive, twice as expensive as any other lens I have, but I think it's
worth
> it. True, you can't use filters with it, but if I have learned nothing
else
> from my few months of digital shooting, I have come to realize that the
effects
> produced by all filters, except for a polarizer, can be, if not
duplicated, at
> least closely approximated in digital editing. And polarizers don't work
all
> that well with extreme wide angle lenses anyway much of the time.
>
> "As an example of not requiring filters, when shooting landscapes on film,
I
> often use split graduated filters to even the exposure between ground and
sky.
> Not needed with digital. I just put the E-1 on a tripod and shoot one
shot
> exposed for the sky, another exposed for the ground, then put the two
together
> in Picture Window Pro. Takes about two minutes.
>
> "FYI, in case you haven't seen this lens in person, I've attached a shot
of the
> front element. Its prominence does make one a little careful when using
the
> lens, but I ordinarily don't give it a whole lot of thought. If you want
a
> really WA digital lens, I don't think you'll regret getting one of these.
It
> does take a chunk out of the wallet, though."
>
> And for the still curious, here's that quick and dirty litle jpeg:
>
> http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1075.jpg
>
> Walt
>
>
> --
> "Anything more than 500 yards from
> the car just isn't photogenic." --
> Edward Weston
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Gordon Ross <gordross@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > Hi All:
> >
> > A friend has asked me about the 7-14 zoom for the E series vs the other
WA
> > zooms Oly has. Since I don't have an E 1 I don't have much to say. I
know
> > that it is difficult to solicit an opinion on this list, but I appeal to
you
> > all to not be so reticent and share your thoughts on the merits of this
lens
> > or why another might be a better choice.
> >
> > Thanks Gord
> >
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
