Thanks, friends.
I am just a keen amateur photographer. It is obvious, I am very in love
with olympus (except with the XA).
The use I do for the 28 mm is just as a general wide angle lens. Mainly I
do landscapes with that lens, but not just that, candids as well (when
rain and job allow me to go out). I found in a series of pictures of a
tiny spanish village I took last summer that when placing the village
castle in the top-left corner of the frame it looks like the tower of Pisa
(which is not, unfortunately for that village). I am not very expert in
the subject, but it seems to me that there is a slight distorsion in
there. Anyway, it is not so serious.
The all-purpose lens I have is the zuiko 35-105. Great lens. I am proud to
say that a friend of mine, profesional photograprer and canon user, was
impresed when he saw the resolution of the lens... even using a 400 ASA
film and a filter! That made me a really happy man.
Then I've got a zuiko 135 mm 3.5 for portraits. I really like the lens
because it is really tiny, so together with the OM1/OM4 you can take
close portraits of people without they being really aware.
And, finally, I've got a Vivitar series 175-205 3.5. Well, that is the
lens I would like to replace. It is not so bad but sometimes I miss the
zuiko quality.
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 ZuikoholicRI@xxxxxxx wrote:
> In a message dated 11/09/2000 6:52:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> P.Bernad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
> > I would like to ask you which is the best option for a wide angle lens. I
> > own a zuiko 28mm 2.8 and quite like it. However I find that distorsion is
> > quite evident in corners.
> > I would like to ask for advice for a telephoto zoom lens. is the 100-200
> > OK?
> >
> >
> Pablo,
>
> I have both of the lenses you mentioned. I've never noticed any significant
> corner distortion with the 28/2.8, but now that you've mentioned it, I'll
> have to run some tests ;-) The only other fixed focal length wide I own is
> the 24/2. Gary Reese has panned thsi lens for it's distortion, so if you are
> particularly concerned with distortion it may not be teh best for you. The
> 24/2.8 might be better. Personally, I love the 24/2 and have never noticed
> the distortion problem, but I use it mostly for landscapes, not architecture,
> so distortion isn't a big issue with me.
>
> You asked if the 100-200 is OK. I would say, yes, it is OK. I have both the
> 100-200/5 and the 65-200/4. The 100-200 is really no match for the 65-200,
> but I use it when I want to travel light (which is fairly frequently). The
> 100-200 is a terrifically small and light lens - it's the only lens I have
> that goes to 200mm that fits in my Orion mini fanny pack - but it is also
> slow (if you have a camera that will accept them, a 2-x screen is a godsend
> with this lens). For the right application, I really like the lens. I don't
> know what the going rates are in the UK, but I picked up mine for about
> $110US, in excellent condition, including a 6 month warranty.
>
> Hope this helps a little.
>
> Paul Schings
>
< 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 >
|