> the 50-250 for brighter light, or compactness (it's
> actually shorter when zoomed back).
Yes, that's my only problem with the 65-200 -- it's pretty hefty all by
itself, so it feels as if it doubles the size and weight of the "kit". Then
again, I guess that's fair enough given what it gets me.
> Often I add a Stylus Epic for quick grabshots.
> You can whip it out, open, and shoot with one hand in a
> moment.
This is where I found the XA I just got came in handy, especially when
wandering around with other people where I don't want to have to think about
what I'm doing very much; stop the lens down as far as I can get away with
for the light conditions, set the focus to about 8' or so and rely on
depth-of-field for the rest. Not sure how well that worked yet, but I'm
fairly optimistic.
> Travel photog Richard L'Anson seems to work with two 4Ts and
> the 24/2 and 100/2,
The 100/2 is certainly a tempting possibility; combine that with a 2x
converter for a bit of extra range, and I'd be down to, hm, actually 5g
more, but I save 2cm or so of length. Dunno, the 100/2 is pretty spendy,
though the extra speed at 100mm would be nice.
> although lenses and a body with higher speed film come along
> for special cases.
And faster film is a much cheaper alternative.. sure, I'd lose a bit of
quality, but probably no more than I lose by added hand-shake; and carrying
a tripod puts this into a whole new realm of size.
-- dan
< 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 >
|