Tal,
A bunch of strictly subjective and very much "my personal
opinion" comments below.
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Tal Lancaster wrote:
> I have enjoyed using my OM2n for the past 20 years now. However, I am
> wanting to upgrade the body and pick up some lenses.
>
> Are there some places people would recommend to try and locate these
> items (or places to avoid)?
>
> OM4Ti
IMO, the only gain you'll get over your OM2n is spot-metering. Can be a
fine thing, but just don't underestimate your OM2n. It's a beautiful
camera :)
I have an OM4 (non-ti) and while it is a nice body, it is my second-least
used one. I prefer the OM2s/p.
> Zuiko 35-70mm F3.6
A good lens. I recently acquired one, which has a few quirks. However I
believe this to be my sample (and I am told that a visit to the OM-doctor
should cure mine). Heavy, though, and not that compact. But the pictures
I've taken with it are sharp and good.
> Zuiko 24mm F2
Now THAT is a great lens. The first zuiko wide-angle I bought, and what a
lens. Again, big for a wide-angle, it has a 55mm thread. The only real
drawback is, that you have to be careful not to get vignetting if using a
polfilter (get one of those flat filters marked "wide"). Very sharp, very
good contrasts. And it is also rather hard to make it do any distortions.
This is one of my favourites - part of my "55mm kit" which I use a lot.
I'd say that in that kit, the 24mm sees about 500f the action.
You cannot go wrong with that lens - seriously.
> Zuiko 65-200 F4
>
I do not own one, but (thanks to a fellow Zuikoholic) I have had the
chance to try one out.
Now, firstly I should mention that I am not a zoom-guy. The two zuiko
zooms I have (35-105 and 35-70/3.6) are used in my
"point-and-shoot" setups, typically. I prefer fixed focal lengths, since
it forces me to think more carefully about my position and the image
composition before I shoot. When I use a zoom, I often find myself being
satisfied by "just cropping". This is just my way of working, and I try to
adjust my gear-acquisitions to that. This is just me...
So I am biased against zooms :)
The 65-200 is getting reasonable marks at Garys lens test, hence my
interrest and my borrowing of the lens. However if I had the 35-75/3.6, I
would probably get a 200/4 and be happy with that. Why? Well, the 200/4 is
one of my favourites. It is compact enough to carry in a pocket. And I
found, that I would often be using the 65-200 at 200mm, while not use it
much in the other positions. So the 200/4 being more compact and lighter,
and with better marks at Gary's, I decided to opt for this lens. A clear
advantage of the 65-200, though, is that it is an one-touch zoom. I much
prefer that over two-touch.
Also, I seem to recall that someone on the list has reported some problems
with this lens (oil or something) in the past. Perhaps someone can
elaborate..?
> Any opinions plus or minus on these pieces?
Well, I'd probably say that the 35-70/3.6 and the 24/2 are good choises,
though I would not consider the 65-200.
However what I would do would be this: get a 24/2, 85/2 and 200/4. The
85/2 is one of the unsung heros of the OM system, and is really a
great lens. The only drawback is, that the filter thread of the 85/2 is
49mm while both the 24 and 200 have 55mm threads.
>
> How much should I expect to spend for these?
>
Uhh....someone out there knows much more than I. I think I paid around USD
200 for the 35-70/3.6. For the 24/2, I do not remember the price since it
is a long long time ago.
--thomas
--
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|