I'd bring the 90 and let the L**** handle the other shots. It has a lot of
reach and gets you a longer lens if you need it for portraits, etc. I like the
strong 3-d look of the 90/2 af f/2 - f/4.
Skip
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Please reply to [skipwilliams at pobox.com]
Direct responses to the email address on the header may get lost
----------------------------------------------------------------->
>Subject: [OM] Hiking: 50/2 or 90/2?
> From: "Richard F. Man" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 07:47:18 -0700
> To: oly <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Last time I went hiking with the *other* camera, I really wished I have the
>OM4T+ one of the macro lens for the occasionally macro shots. However,
>neither the 50/2 nor the 90/2 is small. The 50/2 wins here since it is
>smaller but the 90 has a different perspective than the lenses on the other
>camera.
>
>So question is if you can only bring one lens w/ your OM (plus another
>camera with its lens), would you take the 50/2 or the 90/2?
>
>// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com>
><http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo>
>
>
>< 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 >
|