On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:31:00 -0800
"George M. Anderson" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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!
Well, pricy to be sure. But I guess worth it. I bet that if I it is
possible find a suitably powerfull projector, we could project slides
on the moon without any grains visible :)
>
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
Reservations? Now that was a very usefull piece of information. Would
that be with the "natl. park and forrest service", or what is the
name such that I can search for a phonenumber for making
reservations? I would definitely like to head that way (with a
trekker and a sturdy tripod), and would hate to be stopped by not
having gotten paperwork taken care of.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I was unaware of that.
> >
> > > 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?)
Euros, actually. France is in the euro zone. IIRC, the exchange rate
with the USD is roughly 1:1 or so.
I have the 300/4.5 and the 1.4x. Considering how little I have used
the long focal lengths in the past years, I am not sure that I will
be able to ever justify the 350/2.8 ever (that costs what? the
equivalent of the gross domestic product of a small country?). The
180 might be a different beast. I find that I use my 200/4 and 200/5
quite a bit, so that would probably be usefull. Then again, if I
never try the 180/2, I will never know that I need it - and the
savings will make the CDFO happy :)
>
> >
> > 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.
>
HIE.....I had to look at Kodak's site for thatone.
High-speed-infrared. Hmm...never done much except trying one IR film.
I like your idea of mounting the filter inside the body rather than
on the lens. Except for the dust-issue, that does sound like a good
though.
<SNIP - 35-80/2.8>
> > > ***
> > > 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 ...
>
Well, I cannot compare to the 65-200/4 since I do not have thatone.
However the viewfinder image is much much brighter than that of a /4
lens which, to me, is an advantage. I can only second your opinion to
try out what you think of it. Then again, if the 65-200 does the job
you need, then that too is a fine lens.
> >
> > > 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 ...
>
Hehe...well, I have the 24/2 and the 24/2.8 both. I do not have
anything wider than 24mm, though, so I am going to stick with both.
Those 21/2 are so darn expensive....
> >
> > 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 ...
>
Maybe we should make this an "imagine you could keep only TWO lenses
and it had to be PRIMES...." thing :) It is hard to pick just one
favourite.
--thomas
> 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 >
>
--
-------------------------------------------
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 >
|