So interesting.......
I went back thru my last few dozen rolls of of photos, covering all sorts of
subject matter, from the most serious to goofing around family snapshots.
Lenses used, from most frequent to least:
35-80 mm
80-200 mm
300 mm
420 mm (300 w/1.4xA t/c)
21 mm
24 mm
50 mm macro
90 mm macro
On occasion, for a few frames at most, I see I've actually used the 85 or
40, during a self-imposed minimalist week, or the 135, which is a lovely
lens. Much of this is subject choice - motorsport is about 50-600f all
the pictures. What little landscape shots I have are all with the 21 and
24. The 28 seems to be left behind - maybe I should give it to my kid.
John P
______________________________________
My Grandfather taught me to live by two rules. Rule #1: Don't tell folks
everything you know.
-----Original Message-----
From: PCACala@xxxxxxx <PCACala@xxxxxxx>
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] 85/2 vs. 100/2.8
>Hi Joseph:
>
>> For landscapes, if you already have a 50mm lens,
>> 100mm will give you a sufficiently different perspective while 85mm
>probably
>> isn't enough of a jump from 50mm.
>
>Everyone's seeing is different. FWIW [for what it's worth], I wish there
was
>a 75 mm Zuiko. I often find (for landscapes) that I'm using the 63-70 mm
>range on a 35-70 zoom, less often the 85, and less often than that the 100
mm.
>In fact, here is what I think is my ranking of frequency of focal lengths
for
>landscapes, from highest frequency of use to lowest:
>35 mm
>24 mm
>38-43 mm
>50 mm
>63-70 mm
>85 mm
>28 mm
>100 mm
>200 mm
>
>Gary Reese
>Las Vegas, NV
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|