Hi Josh,
IMO, get a 35/2.8 since you state you want to do people (I had -still
have-
one that I used for a few years exclusively before the "Z's" started...)
Take
G. up on his very generous offer of the 50/1.8. Get a good 2X if you can
and
that will give you plenty to work with at least until spring/summer when
you
will realize you need to get wider (24/2.8 comes to mind now) or closer
(then
it's a 100/2.8) (Zuikoholism is definately gonna raise it's silver-nosed
head
on this poor boy)
35,50,70,100 with just 2 lenses and the 2X (extremely small kit)
When you've played with the 35 and the 50 plus the 2X for a while, you'll
know
whether you "need" to go wider or into the zoom area.
Myself? I skipped the 28 and went to 24...there's a mathematical rule<SP?
somewhere that says something about multiplying the FL by 1.4 (hence the
famous 1.4 converter) to get to the next "usable" FL...inverting that
gets you
.714. So, since I have a 35, the next step would be 24... going the other
way,
since I have a 50, the next logical step would be a 70. But! since I have
a
35 and a 2X, that's covered...next step would be the 100 (50+ the 2X)
You have a lot of film to burn playing with just those combinations, and
little outlay of cash. The 35 is a "sleeper" as far as I can tell from
the
list, and I've been lurking here long enough to see Doris "The Fang" quit
twice...this last time seems to be for keeps though >;(
Anyway, someone once said "If you want to go wide, then go WIDE."
I can only afford to go 24 wide...and I still have a lot of pix to take
with it.
All scenics (probably>;) ). 35 will get you a taste of wide, and used
judiciously will do people pleasingly as well...it's my 'lens d'jour' for
family gatherings etc., as well as the 100/2.8 when I'm stalking head and
shoulder shots from the same group.
Bill >; P
(Owner of only "crappy" Zuiks, no stellars, and still takes pix)
"Life unfolds on a great sheet called Time (film)*,
and once finished (developed)* is gone(here)* forever..."
*provided ya have a good archival system in place.
Hello Everyone,
What would be better for me, a 24mm, 28mm or 35mm? I am going to be
in
the bush quite a bit, but I also imagine I'll do other things eg. people.
I
know the 24 has some distortion but is the (I dont know the real term)
angle
of view that much more than the 28? I would like to try and stay away
from
zooms. Maybe I should get a 24 and 35? Also, is there a BIG difference
between f/2.8 and f/2? I know its whole stop but is it that important to
have it?
Thanks,
JOSH
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
< 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 >
|