Joseph
I take your point about not needing a large arsenal of lenses hence, my
thoughts on dropping the 35/2. If I acquire a 21 and the 35-80 and part
with the 24 and 35 then I will have six lenses and one TC covering from 21
to 420 and with significant macro capabilities. I do not presently have a
zoom, having eschewed them until now in favour of primes.
If I were to add the 28/2, which you correctly
point out is rather close to 35, as I originally posited. I would have
the option of the 28/2 in those flare prone circumstances where you say I
might regret having the 35 on a zoom.
Which would you rather have and use, the 35/2 or the 28/2?
I would then have 7 lenses - 1 zoom and 6 primes. Perhaps that is too
many but it is the same number I have at present. In primes I would have
21, 28, 50, 90, 180 and 300. Perhaps that is too many, I could drop the
300 and 28 and then I would have 4 primes and the zoom. There are certain
temptations to that.
Doris is quite correct, I do use one or two lenses far more than all the
others. In my case it is the 90 and 180 which get the heavy use.
Giles
> 35mm shooters get bogged down on having as dense a sequence of focal
> lengths as possible. In medium format, the weight, and for amateur
> shooters, the cost prevent carrying as many lenses and you quickly
> find that you don't need so many. Once upon a time, 35mm camera
> 24mm and 35mm are a bit crowded in focal length anyway. the rationale
> find this a useful pairing. But if you start carrying a 21mm and 35mm
> lens as a wide angle solution, I doubt you would find you were missing
> shots from lacking something in between. 35mm and 28mm are pretty
> close. Whether to pair a 21mm or 24mm lens with a 35mm lens is
> I think if you sell your 35/2 and buy a 35-80, the day will come that
> you will regret the decision.
>
< 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 >
|