From: "Harry Cutting Photography" <hcutting@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Maybe all photogers should be able to do good work with whatever is at
hand,
but that fast glass is sure easier to focus with. It's also sharper
(usually) than the slower glass and, according to Oly Tech Support, is more
ruggedly constructed. Everyone wishes the fast glass was cheaper but once
you start using it you kind of trade off the cost for that nice warm
feeling
in your stomach.
You can trade off the cost even more substantially since the cost of the
cheaper slower film is less than the cost of the more expensive faster film
you would have to use with the slower glass. If you shoot frequently enough
you can recoup the extra cost of the fast glass within a year or so.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: <miaim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 10:33 AM
Subject: [OM] Fast lenses, slow photographers and other opinion
> 1st off, let me express my deep and sincere gratitude to Gary and others
> that have spent so much time documenting the differences, however subtle
> they may be, between various lenses. It makes interesting reading. But
let
> me offer a completely contrarian view.
>
> Now let me say why I don't think it should make a hoot to most
> photographers whether their favorite lens is f2 or f2.8. Actually, let
me
> rephrase that a bit. I think it may well be that paying more for
heavier,
> faster, better coated lenses is really a ripoff for most people. I'm
very
>>> snip >>>
< 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 >
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
< 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 >
|