Winsor, you're a tempter ;-)
But is it not just a little on the large and unwieldy side?
Chris
At 12:17 -0700 31/7/02, Winsor Crosby wrote:
If you use a 50 Bryan. I am using 50 les and less.
-snip
Chris
Something to consider is that I hardly ever use a 35, 50 or 85 since
getting the 35-80/2.8. It is an amazingly fine lens and is only
taken off for macro, 24 or longer telephoto which is surprisingly
seldom. I think the quality is matched only by the 85/2 perhaps.
Expensive, but not considering the smaller kit and cost of lenses it
replaces as well as the fact that the right focal length is on the
camera 90 0f the time.
It is large. I don't know about unwieldy. It handles fine. And
consider that my "kit" is frequently the camera around the neck with
a 24 in one pocket and the 135 in the other. No camera bag.
For comparison, the length is 99mm, diameter 69, weight is 650 grams.
The 90/2 is 71mm long, 72mm in diameter, 550 grams. Interestingly
minimum focus for the 35-80 is 0.6 meter and the 90 is 0.4 meters
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
?
< 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 >
|