On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 GARYINLA@xxxxxxx wrote:
> How do you decide what to actually put in your camera bag? Any suggestions as
> to what would be best to actually carry around for street photography and/or
> travel snapshot type photography?
I usually carry 24/2.8 (or 2.0), 35/2.8, 50 (1.8 or 3.5), 100/2.8 and
135/2.8 for this sort of shooting. I might leave the 135/2.8 behind and
bring an XA/A-16 combo. For a lighter bag, I bring the 24/2.0 and
the 35-70/3.6 instead. If I know I'll need a longer lens, I add the 70-210
Series 1, but I hate carrying it. Tamron makes a tiny 70-210 in Adaptall
that might find its way into my bag sometime in the future. My minimalist
kit is a 28 (/3.5, /2.8, or /2.0) and a 50/1.8.
I find the smaller primes quicker to work with than anything else. I
usually carry all this (plus 10-14 rolls, a body with winder, appropriate
flash, lens shades, 81B & C, fl-d, polarizers, a yellow-green for b&w, GND
filter, Sharpie pen, tiny notepad, $40 in the bottom of the bag, OM cable
release and a light but sturdy table tripod) in a small Tenba bag designed
for the Polaroid Spectra in which I have inserted partitions from some of
my other bags. It is bulging, but it works.
> Maybe the 35-105, is the best solution, but I havent seen one of these yet.
I find it a little big and slow-handling (for OM), so mine has only seen
a few rolls. It is my least-used lens, near-mint, hahahahaa... (I should
probably sell it and use part of the $ to get an 85/2.0...oops, thinking
out loud...which way to OM-Anon?).
> Third party brand of lens-- such as 39-80 Sigma or 70-150mm Vivitar 3.8 (so
> you can bang them around without fear of loss or damage to an OM lens that may
> sit at home collecting dust?)
Go OM with the glass!. If you "bang" anything
around, it will be the bodies that die first, so...be careful.
> The least useful lens to carry seems to be the 50mm, unless one needs it for
> low light conditions and one does not have 35, 80 or 100 f2's (or one only
> wants to carry one lens and for some reason wouldnt rather have a 35mm.)
When I only carry one lens, it is the 35/2.8. But don't sell the 50
short...I find it very useful in conjunction with a 28. I remember a local
photographer (who has had a LIFE mag cover) who told me that he shot
everything he could with the 50mm because "It is the most believable
lens." (and this guy has tons of lenses). I've always thought of the
35-70's as "rubber 50mm's". I hope this clarified more than it
confused...
*= Doris Fang =*
< 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 >
|