on 6/6/02 8:34 PM, Damon Wood at deewhy_au@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Thanks all for your comments, Tom - moose and Bill,
>
> your input made me think weather it is worth investing in a lens with a
> relatively small difference in focal length.
>
> I also think, if I am to buy another wide angle - its gotta be a f2 MC. Of my
> lens collection (28mm 2.8, 50 MACRO 3.5, 50 1.4, 70 - 15- f4, 135 2.8, 300
> 4.5), the only pro lens is really the 135 2.8. A f2 would look pretty
> attractive sitting amongst that somewhere.
>
> Maybe what I am looking at is a 21mm or 40mm f2. Although, my bank account
> would suffer for months on end!
>
> The quest continues yet again........., diseases are infectious!
>
> Thanks to the list yet again,
>
> Damo
>
Damon - In looking at your lenses, I think you have several "pro" quality
lenses already. The 300/4.5 is about as good a 300 as you will find in the
'slower' aperture range, and not all that slow really, either. We covered
here recently that the 50/3.5 is a very good macro lens, a bit slow for
everyday use, but you take care of that with the 50/1.4 nicely... Note that
the higher the serial number the better for the 50/1.4 according to legend
<g>. I have gotten very good results with my 50/1.4's in the middle
hundred-thousands serial number range, and I suspect any differences would
be overcome by stopping down a few stops. The 28/2.8 gives you a nice wide
angle, wide enough to be noticable.
If I were looking for a new 'pro' level lens, I would consider either a
21/3.5 or a 35/2.0. If you think a 28 is wide, you will find a 21 to be
extremely so, its actually wide enough to be somewhat specialized and a bit
difficult to use, but it is a joy for the right subjects. I like mine for
inside in small rooms, outside with a nice landscape or a building where I
can't back up very much. Its not much good as a people/portrait lens,
although it works well for 'street shooting' snapshots if you don't get in
too close where distortion can occur.
The 35/2.0 is a very usable lens, and a much better choice than a 40/2.0 IMO
in every case except where you might want a very slim camera/lens combo for
carrying in a jacket pocket or such. Note that recent 40/2.0 lens sales have
been a ludricrous prices, 4-5 times as much as a good 35/2.0 will go for.
The 35 is the 'standard' focal length for many point-and-shoot cameras, is
good for all kinds of snapshots, won't cause distortion if you are
relatively close to people until its right in their faces, and provides a
usefully wider angle of view than a 50 when you are inside. The faster 2.0
is useful for inside, and it is noticably easier to focus and frame than the
35/2.8. As far as I know, all the 35/2.0 were multicoated, even the
silvernose (I learned that on this list).
I suspect you could easily find both the 21/3.5 and the 35/2.0 for less than
the cost of a 21/2.0, and for half the cost of a 40/2.0...
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|