On 1/20/07, Michael Wong <mialop@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi, Joel,
> I agree that zoom lens is more convenient. I always take my 35-80/2.8
> to my China trip. Honestly to say, it's quiet heavy when you belong
> it with camera & motor. Recently, I got an OM-1n. The motor fails to
> work properly with the OM-1n. Therefore, I don't think it's a good
> balance to put my 35-80/2.8 onto my OM-1n without motor. As my idea,
> a light combination for my hiking photography as OM-1n without motor,
> 24/2, 35/2, 50/1.2 & 85/2.
>
> Any idea for it?
I think someone suggested the 35-70/3.5-4.5. That doesn't mean you
shouldn't have an 85/2, and my comments about the 35-80 weren't meant
to suggest it.
I like zooms, and always have, which is certainly fortunate in the
digital era. I have to confess to also having the Z 35-105, which is
really just a smidgeon less wonderful than the 35-80 for normal
things, but of course it has the extra reach to 105 and a very handy
close-focusing capability. My hiking kit would include that and a 24
or 21 and a 135 or 200 if I had the luxury of carrying more than just
the zoom. 95% of my shots outdoors are apt to fall within the range
of the 35-105. Not saying yours will, but it sounds like they do from
the lenses you list.
Whatever the weight differential between the 35/50/85 combo and the
35-80 (or 35-105), it can't be much. But the ability to zoom rather
than have to change lenses means you spend your time at photography
rather than mechanics in the field. Those are my thoughts. Some
people love primes so dearly that they zoom with their feet and don't
think a thing about the trouble of changing lenses. Me, I'd rather
put the energy into carrying a tripod and one lens that does it all
(or does most of it).
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|