Based on your friend's experience, I'd shy away from the 24mm too <g>. I do
not mean to imply the 35mm would not do a good job. I was biased toward
showing more sky.
I understand the imperatives of physics as it relates to image size and
brightness <sigh> the laws of physics are not to be trifled with. Had I
unbounded resources, I'd use sereral bodies, all fitted with 50mm f/2.0
macro lenses, set at slightly different angles to cover a large patch of sky
with a little overlap, then stitch multiple images together for a final
picture.
John P
______________________________________
there is no "never" - just long periods of "not yet".
there is no "always" - just long periods of "so far"
kelton <kelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> replied:
Well, John, the main reason a 24 f/2 wouldn't be the first lens I'd purchase
for meteor showers is the experience of a fellow amateur astrophotographer,
who purchased one and found it, in his words, "entirely unacceptable" for
this purpose. <...snip...> What I really want, you see, is a
wide-angle-telephoto (heh, heh); but given the imperatives of physics, I'm
looking for the ideal compromise. I didn't see you recommending the 35f/2,
is that a deliberate omission? Do you think the 35/2 would *not* do a good
job at this task?
Or were you simply going for the options that showed more sky?
< 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 >
|