You use far too few pieces of equipment to take far too many pictures! :-)
Too bad Oly didn't make versions of that lens for the OMs. There are
pretty good alternatives.
The Tokina 35-200/3.5-4.5 is a great lens, a little faster, a bit more
reach and macro to 1:4 in a well built package. The Tamron SP equivalent
is significantly heavier and clunkier, but a good lens.
The Tamron 28-200/3.8-5.6 (aspherical LD IF), is quite an impressive
lens too. The earlier Model #71 didn't focus close enough for my taste,
seemed overly prone to flare and just didn't seem to deliver whatever
combo of resolution, contrast and ?? makes for a good image, at least in
come circumstances. The #171 is a significant improvement in all those
areas, making images I like. The IF is convienient for polarizers and
allows a bayonet mount tulip style hood, which may be part of the reason
I found less flare, and looks cool too. Downsides are vignetting wide
open at wide angle and pincushion at the long end. I want to figure out
how to adjust for the former in Photoshop and the later is seldom a
problem for me with my favored subjects. In fact, I never noticed it
until I took some shots of reflections in a mirrored building. Focuses
the 'wrong' (Nik*n) direction and is rather plasticky, but rather light.
Compact at 28mm, but rather imposing when aroused, er, uh, extended to
200mm.
Moose
AG Schnozz wrote:
You're asking us how much is too much?
Well, let's see. I've got two bodies, a 24, 35, 50, 100, 135 and 200. Oh, and
a IS-3. I've got too much stuff, but a super-tele would be nice...
Gotta love that 35-180 zoom. Wish I had something equivelent for the OM.
< 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 >
|