On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Giles wrote:
> For those of you, who like me, only want one example of a particular focal
> length,
> do not be too put off by the extra weight of the F2.0, it amounts to only 90
> grams
> (3oz) difference.
It's not just that, really. The extra size in the camera bag, the 55mm
filters, and the way the extra 3 oz feel on my OMs make it different.
That 3oz means I can lug around 3 more rolls of film too. When I need
the speed, the 24/2.0 (and/or 28/2.0) go with me. Did you know Eugene
Richards used the 21/2.0 Zuik ? He had terrible things to say about the OM
bodies, though (WRT durability), but he loved the lens.
Then there's guys like Galen Rowell, who is strong enough to carry
anything he wants to, and can easily afford it as well, and he prefers
the Nikkor 24/2.8 to the 24/2.0. Hmmmmm. Many of his most famous images
were taken with that focal length. Imagine, he even carries the lowly
Cosina-Nikon FM-10 sometimes to save weight...and a battered old slow 20mm
for the same reasons.
But if speed really matters, why own OM anyway ? A 24/2.0 ? Yaaaawn,
Canon has a jewel of a 24/1.4. A 28/2.0 ? Passe'....Nikon has its 28/1.4.
35/2.0 ? Puhleeze...85/2.0 ? How quaint. But I do not mean to rock the
boat, only to say that one should consider the use the lenses one owns
will be put to. Take Giles' and William S's advice, but remember, thanks
to the wisdom of Mr. Maitani, there are options within the OM system. To
each her/his own.
*= 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 >
|