Is a zoom really necessary? Well what do you mean by necessary? To be a
gneuine Zuikoholic? No. To take good pictures? No. To get exactly the
angle, perspective, framing I'l looking for? Well, at least easier. If
the standard is changed from necessary to convienient. Yes, zooms are
tools that make it easier to do lots of photographic things. I
particularly like them for the reason C.H. articulated, framing in the
camera.
Well, I just made some comments that might be considered negative about
those who let brand loyalty get in the way a clear understanding of
performance. So as a clear eyed Zuikoholic with Zuikos in virtually
every focal length from 18-300mm*, I would not buy a Zuiko as my first
zoom. If I am a picture taker rather than a collector, why spend a lot
of money on an 85-250/5 when I can get a 60-300 which is the same speed
at 250, goes longer at essentially the same speed, is faster at shorter
fls, is at least the performance equal and includes quality REAL macro
(1:1.6, not the 1:4 that is marketed as macro) all for less than half
the price you are talking about. My actual recommendation in general for
a first zoom would be something in the 35-200ish range, and Oly got out
of the game before producing such a thing.
The only Zuiko soom that really impresses me is the 35-70/3.5-4.5.
Moose
* ok, so I don't have a 40mm, I have 35mm, many 50mms and 2 different
35-70 zooms. And I don't have a 90mm, but I have an 85 and a 100mm.
Close enough??
Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
A zoom.... is it that necessary. I use the zoom of my autofocus stereo
camcoder. Right now I have the possibility of buying the 85~250/5 @ USD
300-350, NEW but not in box (already have the 200/4).
< 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 >
|