Gradually, with the passage of many years, I have overcome my
prejudice against zoom lenses, having been impressed by their
improving performance and seduced by their convenience, though
they'll never take the place of my Zuiko primes when I'm really
serious. Anyway, about a year ago I bought a 19-35/3.5-4.5
Phoenix to go along with my 35-105/3.5-4.0 Zuiko.
Since the Phoenix lens, though an excellent performer, takes 77mm
filters, I couldn't justify buying even what I consider the
minimum set, i.e., UV, warming (Tiffen 812 or B+W KR3, etc.)
polarizer, and enhancing, since these filters would cost about
twice what the lens did.
That's one thing.
A few weeks ago I bought a 28-105/2.8 Tamron, which, despite its
size, I really like, so it's a definite keeper, probably replacing
the 35-105 Zuiko as my primary "snapshot" lens. It takes 82mm
filters, so now I have two lenses that can use this size filter, a
77-82mm step-up ring being all that's need for them to fit the
Phoenix. This, of course, as any fool can plainly see,
justifies -- actually requires -- the acquisition of a set of 82mm
filters.
One things leads to another.
My widest prime has been a 21/2 Zuiko, and there have been a
couple of occasions lately where it just wasn't quite wide
enough. The 18/3.5 Zuiko is out of my price range, especially
considering how infrequently I would use it.
But, hey, now I've got a set of 82mm filters, and that's exactly
the right size for the 17/3.5 Tamron, so, naturally, that
justifies -- nay, requires -- buying one. Doesn't it? Please
tell me it does, because I just ordered one from KEH, excellent
plus, for $265, a heckuva lot less than the Zuiko would set me
back.
Does it never end? What other lenses take 82mm filters?
Walt
< 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 >
|