Mike;
michaeljohnston@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
> As you can imagine, publishing is not an easy business.
>
Thanks for the insight. I've been a subscriber for 6 or 8 years. I'll
try to be more prompt with my payments in the future! BTW, you didn't
have to spend anything to reel me in - I came word of mouth from several
other photographers. There're 4 of us and we meet regularly to show,
critique and discuss our prints. Articles in your mag often come up. Eg
the recent article on handling Cibachrome reciprocity.
> ***
>
> So may I please talk about Zuikos now? <gg>
>
> I'm interested in getting a 35-70 zoom; I'm sure you all have covered
> this ground before and might not want to again, but, if anyone wouldn't
> mind taking the time, I'd love to hear of peoples' impressions,
> experiences, and favorites among the various options. Thanks!
>
> --Mike
>
> Mike Johnston, Editor-in-Chief
I'd do one of two things: :>)
1) If I really wanted a quality zoom to make high quality slides and
enlargements from, I'd get, not a 35-70 but ... yup a 35-80/2.8 Why
settle for less? (And, hey, if you get a quantity discount from
Olympus, - order an extra one for me! :>)
2) If I wasn't going to be super-critical about results, I'd get a 35-70
that comes free with a body - the OM2000 + 35-70/3.5-4.8 I recently did
this myself, though haven't used the lens yet. Darn plastic thing is
light as a feather though. Sure doesn't feel like a Zuiko.
George
< 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 >
|