> Yes, I think I did buy my 35-70 from you. When I was at the peak of my
> OM shooting I was shooting with the AT-X lenses a lot. I has the 24-40,
> 35-70, and the 80-200. It was a great set of lenses! I really enjoyed
> the results I got with the AT-X lenses. They were not small or very
> light, but it made for a great set of well matched lenses. all I really
> needed in fact.
I shot a lot of weddings with that lens. The results weren't
particularly "artsy", but they were always sharp, even and
predictable. It was just a comfortable lens. A bit on the large side,
but comfortable. Compared to the 35-80, it's a little tyke.
> As an aside - related to the earlier thread about the E system being so
> big, in reality my E-5 setup covers a wider range with just two lenses -
> 12-60 and 50-200 gives me a 24-400 focal length equivalent.
Agreed. My preference is still for the 14-54 over the 12-60. But
Olympus did exceptionally well with those three lenses. Two bodies,
two lenses. A perfect setup for the event/wedding photographer.
I suppose that if I wanted to get my Leica on, I would mount the 100/2
to one OM body and the 35/2.8 or 24/2.8 to the other. A compromise
would be the 28/2, but Joel won't sell me his, yet. But I did shoot
almost an entire book project last year with just the 35-80.
I'm discovering that "less is more" again. It's tough to downsize to a
minimalist kit when you have so much wonderful stuff. It would be a
cool idea to do a two-lens trip, but then the question is which two?
Before you know it, you're dragging the entire cabinet of gear along.
Karen reminds me that I have four camera bags, but that doesn't mean
that I need to bring all four!
Yeah, what does she know...
AG
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|