Derek,
Definitely go with the 35/2.8 -- I'm considering the 100/2.8 at KEH, so I
believe that you'd be better served if you bought the 35 and leave me a few
more days to consider the 100 :-0
- Craig
derek fong <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 8, 2003, at 05:55 PM, Per Öhström wrote:
>
> > I've never photographed a baptism, but I do have and use two Zuiko
> > zooms
> > extensively - the 35-105 and the 65-200. I've never thought of them as
> > too
> > dark to focus, but sometimes too slow to hold still, especially the
> > 65-200.
> > The obvious solution is a monopod. (Or a tripod, which of course is
> > even
> > better but more difficult to move around quickly.) I think both are
> > very
> > good lenses, but the 65-200 really has the edge. A wonderful zoom lens
> > with
> > a really good macro feature @ 200 mm. It all depends on how close you
> > can get
> > but if I wouldn't know in advance I would stake my bet on the 65-200,
> > since
> > it probably would be easier to keep a distance than to push towards the
> > center of the action. On the other hand, the 35-105 is definitely more
> > of
> > an allrounder and probably the lens I use the most (possibly with the
> > exception
> > of the 24mm f/2.8).
>
> Hi,
>
> Well, first off, thanks to all for the great suggestions! They have
> been very helpful, and I am now re-evaluating the "situation".
>
> I originally thought that since I already have a 28/2.8, my best bet
> would be to get a telephoto lens of some sort (I was thinking either 85
> or 100mm) to shoot this event. My reasoning for this was so that I
> could either take some portrait photos (before and after the baptism)
> or get in close if I end up being too far to get decent shots with my
> 50/1.8. However, I am now considering getting a 35 or 100 (the 85/2
> is, unfortunately, too expensive for me). I think some good arguments
> have been made to keep me away from buying and using a zoom lens for
> this particular event (even though it would be a good thing to have as
> an all-purpose lens later).
>
> Like I said, though, I'm now torn by whether I should get something at
> the short or long end. I can see the rationales for going either way,
> but I'm thinking (personally) that maybe something at the telephoto end
> would be more practical for me after the baptism since I already have
> the wide and normal end of the spectrum covered. That was part of the
> reason I was originally considering a zoom lens, but if I won't be able
> to use my new "toy" for the baptism, then I just can't justify getting
> a new lens right now...
>
> Any thoughts? My budget is roughly US$180, so I'm thinking I can
> afford either a 35/2.8 or a 100/2.8 from KEH, but not both. :(
>
> -f
>
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|