Ross;
What a coincidence. I spent several hours last nite trying to determine
what equip to take on an upcoming 2 week trip to Hawaii (my first time
there.) I won't go into detail here about my equip quandries, but I
have a couple of comments about yours.
Ross Waite wrote:
>
> G'day
>
> In April and May next year, I hope to take my first ( and maybe only)
> overseas trip, <SNIP>
> My plan at this stage is to take my OM-4 body, 21/3.5, 28/2, 40/2, 85/2 &
> 200/5, plus a light tripod with a small Manfrotto ball head fitted with a
> Uni-Loc quick release mechanism.
That's a nice setup - small lenses, but a few with speed. I like that.
> Other options are:
>
> - substitute my 35-70/3.5-4.5 for the 40/2. (sacrifice speed for
> flexibility of composition)
Yeah, the zoom would make a nice lens to leave on the camera. But at the
expense of basically two stops. Gary's tests indicate this lens performs
darn near as well as the 40, so maybe this is worth the swap. Tough
decision.
> - substitute a 70-210 (which I would have to buy) for the 200/5 ( no real
> loss of speed but maybe greater flexibility?)
> (After reading Gary Reese's test of the Cosina made 70-210, it seems it
> may be a reasonable choice for travel weighing only 355g. It is also
> reasonably priced. Only down side appears to be pronounced pin cushion
> distortion at 135mm setting)
This would be a big change in your setup. It would definitely add a
great deal of flexibility. And the performance seems reasonable. If
you're going to buy a lens like this, thing about the Zuiko 65-200,
used. It's a better made lens, although down side is it's heavier and
more $$$. Or even a 100-200/5. Nice and light. Mine performs better
than Gary's tests would indicate. But his is OM-1, I use OM-4T
w/prefire. This really is a great lens for the money.
> - substitute a 135/2.8 (which I would also have to buy and may be hard to
> come by) plus my Kiron 1.5x TC for the 200/5 (gain in speed plus an
> intermediate focal length, but sacrifice quality at 200mm when using the
> 1.5x TC)
I think the sacrifice in quality here would rule this out for me.
> - include my 35 shift (may be useful for the architecture, but may not
> really be wide enough for a lot of situations). I would be prepared to lug
> the extra weight of this lens if someone convinces me it will be really
> useful.
I would **definitely** bring this lens. especially on a trip where
you'll be seeing so much architecture. Even if it's not wide enuf for
all shots, it'll give a much nicer rendition of those compositions on
which you do use it. I would guess that this lens is one that suffered
from the "aperture stop-down shakes" in Gary Reese's tests. Now, I
guess you'll need to leave another lens behind. Hmmm... nah - just add
this to your bag. It'll be worth it! (It's really tough to decide
whether to leave the 28/2 or the 40/2. I think I'd leave the 28, cause
the 40 is a good normal lens and you've still got 21 and 35 for wide
shots.)
So, here's a possible bag o' lenses: 21/3.5; 35/2.8 shift;
35-70/3.5-4.5(or 40/2); 85/2; long zoom (pick one.) I might choose the
40 over the zoom after seeing this list, just for the speed.
In any case, these ramblings of mine are worth the paper they're written
on. You're the one trippin'.
>
> Also any thoughts on film would be appreciated. I am thinking of
> standardising on 100 speed, perhaps Sensia 2 or Provia (or maybe the new
> Provia 100F if it is released by then.) If necessary I could rate the odd
> roll at 200 and push process. Many of the British landscapes I have seen
> in the mags have been shot on Velvia. I don't particularly like this film
> for Australian conditions - a bit over the top, but maybe I could be
> convinced to take some. (Problem is its slow speed, which may mean an
> extra body - one for the Velvia and one for a higher speed GP film. This
> would start to make my backpack very heavy.)
If you don't really like Velvia, forget it. Especially since you may
need to bring an extra body. (Although, I may be tempted to bring
another body as a spare anyway.) You can get Velvia type photos at 100
speed using Kodaks' new Ektachrome 100 VS. It's a great film.
>
> I plan on taking 2 filters - polarising (cir) & 81A. Is a ND grad (Cokin
> style) worth taking along? If so, can anyone recommend a brand that doesn't
> give a colour cast? (The rather cheap one I have gives a noticeable magenta
> cast.)
Yes, I've experienced the magenta cast on the plastic Cokins. Pretty
much the only way to handle it is get a glass ND. I bought the Tiffen
and am very pleased with it. There are also Singh-Ray and others. But -
be prepared to spend around $70 US for one of these cash cows.
So, I hope this helps more than it confuses!
George
>
> Finally, if any locals would like to e-mail me off list regarding
> interesting or scenic places that are worth a visit, on or off the beaten
> tourist track, that would be great. (We will be travelling independently,
> probably by car.)
>
> Hope all of this is not too much for one query, or too OT for the list.
>
> Regards
> Ross Waite
> < 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 >
|