Thanks to all who provided comments and suggestions regarding my
possibly trading my Zuiko 28mm/f2.8 for a Zuiko 24mm/f2.8 that's in
"minty" condition. (Yech! I *hate* that phrase! Just can't think of a
better one right now.) I found everyone's comments helpful and
enlightening.
Some specific replies to some of your comments:
On 3 Sep 2000, at 11:40, Daryl F Hurley wrote:
> I wouldn't recommend swapping off a lens you like and are familiar with
> for an unknown. Later, if you find that you like the 24 so much that
> are not using the 28 you can always dump it then.
Good point! I *really* like the 28/2.8 even though I haven't had it all that
long, and it's given me some dandy pictures. See below regarding
keeping them both, though.
On 2 Sep 2000, at 18:36, Gary Reese wrote:
> In comparing the prints from the 24mm and the 28mm, did you vary the
> camera to subject distance so that both produced the same picture area?
> In another words, if you photograph a car with the 28mm, did you move in
> with the 24mm and get the same length of car? If not, it might be why
> you are seeing more contrast and detail in the 28mm prints.
'Nuther good point! Uhhhh.... No, I didn't vary the distance so that they
both produced the same picture area. One of the things I wanted to find
out was how much extra angle I'd get with the 24, so the tripod stayed
put. Maybe I should've done that.
> The 28mm f/2.8 is generally worth about 2/3ths the 24mm f/2.8 Perhaps
> put the 24mm on layaway and make payments?
That's certainly an option, and I hadn't thought of that before. Thanks!
On 2 Sep 2000, at 22:13, Gregg wrote:
> It does seem to be a shame to get rid of a perfectly good lens (that you
> like) to get another.
It's hard letting go of my treasured photo equipment. They become
almost like "children" to me. That's NOT an indication of my having a
"problem" though! (See comment below to Doris Feng) <G>
On 2 Sep 2000, at 21:46, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> Yes, I'm afraid you are doomed.
Please *DON'T* tell me I'm doomed, Joel! I *DON'T* wanna hear that!!!
(See comment below to Doris Feng) <G>
> The 24 seems really to be more of a super WA, one you have to be careful
> with in setting up your shot, but one which also rewards greatly when
> properly and carefully used.
Yeah, I noticed that. The 24 seems to be a bit picky, and if not setup
just so. In my test shots (of a residential construction site across the
street from my house), the 24 rendered a slight "bend" to the straight
lines of the top of the basement wall. Not so much as to be
"unpleasant", but definately noticeable compared to the 28/2.8 samples.
On 4 Sep 2000, at 16:55, John A. Lind wrote:
> Don't know that I really want another 28mm. Bought a 35mm later
> (versus another 28mm) so I could have at least one WA prime with less
> radical perspective lines, and something between the 50mm and 24mm. I'm
> happy with the combination. Your choice will depend on what you want to
> do with it. The 24mm has been very handy for non-urban landscapes.
Hmmmmm!!! Now I'm wondering if I should hunt for a 35!!! <G> I do
alot of landscapes, both urban and country. What I've been finding the
28 handy for, though, is indoor shots where I want to include the entire
room. For instance, I took a shot of the interior of an old school house:
http://www.nucleus.com/~coneill/mypictures/miscphoto/schoolhouse2.ht
ml
I first tried the Zuiko 28/2.8 but couldn't get the entire width of the room
in the shot. So, I had to resort to my Vivitar 24/2.8 (didn't have the
Zuiko at that time).
On 2 Sep 2000, at 19:14, John Hudson wrote:
> I have both the 24 and 28 with their respective metal Oly hoods. A plus
> of the 28 is that it will take standard thickness filters and the Oly
> hood without any evidence of vignetting. Unless used with slim filters I
> experience noticeable vignetting with the 24.
Really??? Hmmm.... I wasn't aware of that. I use the Cokin "P" series
filters. Any idea if those would cause a problem with vignetting? (The
"test" shots were taken with bare lenses... only had the Cokin lens ring
on the 28, but the 24 didn't have any filter or ring on it.) My guess is
that the Cokin "P" filters won't be a problem (they're designed for
medium format and monster telephotos), but the "A" series might. Is
this a correct assumption?
> As regards sharper images I have not noticed any differences between the
> 24 and 28 but then I have not taken the time or trouble to examine the
> slides and negatives in enough detail to distinguish one from the other.
Like I said, the differences were only noticeable using the loupe.
Probably not that big a deal, except for very large enlargements (which I
don't normally do).
> A couple of examples from my 24 are
>
> http://jahudson.tripod.com/482.html
>
> http://jahudson.tripod.com/485.html
Dang, John, you take *REALLY* nice pictures!
On 4 Sep 2000, at 11:06, Ken Norton wrote:
> Granted a "normal" lens might be more "accurate" but how often is
> "accurate" what we are after.
I gave up on trying to get "accurate" photos because NONE of my
photos ever come out that way! <G>
> Interiors are a pain. As much as I like my shift lens, it is worthless for
> most interior shots. I use a 24mm almost exclusively and wish for a
21mm.
Didn't get a chance to try the Zuiko 24/2.8 indoors, but have gotten
some *great* shots with a Vivitar 24/2.8 indoors. (See example above.)
> Mine has undergone severe treatment through the years...
[Snip!]
> ...but it still takes excellent pictures.
Yup! That's one reason why I've always loved my Olympus gear... built
to last! These new-fangled plastic so-called-cameras just don't *feel*
sturdy to me. Gimme an old Olympus *anyday*!!!
On 4 Sep 2000, at 16:42, Lex Jenkins wrote:
> A wider angle lens can be very useful in capturing dramatic vertical
> landscapes of waterfalls, mountains, trees, etc. I'm beginning to
> appreciate moderate telephotos for certain landscapes as well.
I've gotten some *great* scenics with my Zuiko 75-150/f4 lens. I find it
particularly useful for long-distance mountain shots and that kinda thing.
When I try those kinda shots with a wide-angle, the mountains come
out too dinky. The wide-angle is great for closer-up mountains,
waterfalls, and that kinda stuff, though.
On 2 Sep 2000, at 20:11, Tom Scales wrote:
> Anyway you look at it, that is a great deal. 28/2.8 = US$60-75,
> 24/2.8 = US$125-175. Yours, minty, is probably at the higher end.
He has a CDN$300 (US$200) price tag on it, but my experience is that
the slightest "negotiating" will get CDN$25 to CDN$50 (US$40 to
US$75) knock off without too much trouble. When I suggested my
28/2.8 plus CDN$50 I was *really* expecting him to counter with my
lens plus CDN$75 to CDN$100. Wasn't expecting him to agree at all!
Guess he wants to sell it badly!
> See what he'll take for the lens outright. You'll use them both.
I'm seriously considering that, especially if he'll hold it for me on
"layaway" or something. Right now, I don't really want to put out the
cash for it, as I'm saving for that OM-4 I was hoping SOMEONE with a
large inventory (Hint! Hint!) on the list would donate to me. <G>
On 4 Sep 2000, at 15:17, Barry B. Bean wrote:
> I hardly ever shoot anything above f/16 as it is, and both lenses
> have depth of field to spare, so that's normally not an issue. I
> suppose if I was shooting 3200 film at noon on a bright day with no
> shade, it'd be a concern, but I seldom do that.
Neither do I. So, you've made a good point!
> You won't be unhappy with either lens, so why not get both and see what
> suits your shooting style best?
That seems to be the consensus of the list! <G>
And, finally, on 3 Sep 2000, at 1:30, *- DORIS FANG -* wrote:
> In spite of the minor difference in focal length, look at it this way,
> the difference in angle of coverage is quite noticeable.
Yup! The 24/2.8 gives about 10 degrees wider coverage. Not
something I need all the time, but darned handy when I *do* need it!
Besides, it's a Zuiko lens... it's for sale... the price is right... and I
***WANT*** it! <G>
> > I'm *not* a Zuikoholic.... I'm a Zuikohobbiest!
>
> Riiiight, Chris...denial's our #1 defense.
There NO way I'm in denial! No WAY at all! That's balderdash!
Denial?!?!? Me?!?!?! Never!!! <G>
Thanks again, gang, for the helpful comments!
Regards...
Chris
-------------------------------------------------
Chris O'Neill (coneill@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Web: http://www.nucleus.com/~coneill
< 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 >
|