>
> I wonder....is Velvia available in 4x5, and how the heck to project
> something that big...:)
It certainly is. Expensive though at about $50 or so for 20 sheets of
readyloads, plus processing. Project it? With a cannon maybe!
>
> >
> > That said, a year ago or so I got some great shots in Yosemite of
> > Half Dome and full moon and Sunset on Horsetail Falls, all with
> > Zuikos - 180/2, 350/2.8 and the 1.4 and 2x. Beautiful Velvia
> > slides resulted. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to print some soon.
> >
>
> Hey, I may get around to Yosemite this spring. I am hoping for good
> weather, and an opportunity to use the 300/4.5. Yeah, less impressive
> than the 180 and the 350, but 300/4.5 is what I have....
I got a great shot of a coyote in Yosemite in winter with my 300/4.5 before
I sold it.
I was going to suggest you try to get there. March is the PERFECT time.
You'll need reservations though. Used to be you could drop in in the winter
and get a tent cabin for cheap but they're getting rid of those in favor of
expensive housing due to a new 'Master Plan' created by ... oops, better not
go there on this list.
>
> > Lenses I doubt I'll ever sell: (far too expensive to do this kind
> > of work in larger formats. Plus, these are world class lenses)
> > 16/3.5
> > 50/2 macro
> > 180/2
> > 1.4x
> > 350/2.8 (BUT - Here's a month's living expenses!)
> >
>
> Hehe...the only one from that list which I actually have is the 1.4x
> - the rest is way out of my league, I am afraid.
Time, Thomas, give it time. Oh, and maybe some luck and a few bucks.
(Francs?)
>
> I have grown to keep the 28-48 on an OM1 body.....fits right into an
> Everready case, and is now my std. "walking in the city" setup.
> Mostly, something wide is needed (I live in Paris - small streets and
> all), and a zoom is nice. I would not part with mine, although its
> optical properties may not be on par with the prime wides.
Yes, that's what I'd been doing. Keeping it on a 1 -in my case- loaded with
Kodak HIE. It didn't really work out though - the HIE I mean. I was using
a 25 filter taped inside the camera on the frame rails. That kept the
viewfinder from being darkened by 3 stops, and eliminated the
metering/filter on/filter off hassle. But there turned out to be more
headaches, for me at least, with the filter inside the camera. Eg-one
teeny-tiny speck of dust on the filter can ruin whole rolls of film.
>
> > 35-80/2.8 (fantastic lens, right down to wide open. But I could
> > use the$$$s.)
> > 50/1.2 (after all I've got the 50/2. But this lens is incredibly
> > sharp ...) 80, 90 or 135 macro (how can I justify keeping all of
> > these? Can anyone HELP ME?)
> >
>
> Can't help you there. Many people tell me that the 35-80 is the best
> thing since sliced bread,
It is. Except for the damn barrel distortion.
>
> > ***
> > Others I have a hard time justifying keeping all of due to overlap:
> > 24/2.8
> > 28/2
> > 135/2.8
> >
>
> The 135/2.8 is a stunning lens, I think. I really like what I get
> from it. I use it mostly for bw, and I find it really easy to use.
> And, btw., I like the bokkeh of my sample of that particular lens :)
I almost never use it. I always have a zoom in that range (65-200/4) and
it's just easier to leave it on. Maybe that's the one to go. Except I've
almost never used it. I should use it first and see if it is that great,
then I could never think of selling it ...
>
> > So, here I sit, trying to pick the next lens on the chopping block.
> > 28-48/4?; 24/2.8; 135/2.8?
> > Any help out there?
>
> Well, if I was to part with one of the above, it would be the 24/2.8.
> I use all three of these lenses, however the 28-48 and the 135/2.8
> see a lot more action than the 24/2.8, so that would be the way it
> had to go.
Yeah. I've got a 21/2 and 28/2. Why do I need the 24? Well, because it's
sharp and small and ...
>
> Here is an interresting question, George (and others): imagine that
> you could keep only ONE lens, and that it had to be a PRIME (i.e. no
> zooms). What would that lens be?
>
> For me, I would pick either the 55/1.2 or the 135/2,8 - with a strong
> preference for the 55/1.2. The 55/1.2 is truely amazing, and I use
> that probably more than any other lens I ever owned (for the OMs,
> that is).
>
> --thomas
Good question. I'll also nominate 2: The 180/2 and the 50/2 macro. it'd be
REAL tough to choose one. The 50/2 macro: World class standard lens with
macro and flat-field characteristics matched by few others. Sharp as a tack
wide open. The 180/2: Real tough to get anywhere near this lens in 35 mm or
larger formats.
Hmmm...heads it's the 50, tails it's the 180 ...
george
< 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 >
|