Yes, and also if you need good depth of field, with the lens
requirements going in opposite directions for the 2 purposes. I just
knew somebody was going to say this, but didn't feel like nattering on
any further when it was getting a bit away from my main point.
The point is that these same folks already make 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.2,
100/2, 135/2, 300/2.8 and 500/4 prime lenses and 16-35, 24-70, 28-70 and
70-200 f2.8 zooms. They don't NEED to make more fast lenses to prove
anything to anybody, they've already done it. Sure, they will have to
bring out a couple of even shorter fl fast primes for the smaller
sensors, but they are already pretty much there. Compact, light zooms of
moderate aperture and with IS for their smaller sensor size bodies is
something they needed in their lineup. Knocking them for filling a gap
in 1 area by talking about how it doesn't do something as well as
another type of lens, which they already have in abundance, just isn't
sensible.
AGAIN, I'm not pushing anything, just proposing that argument should be
based on accurate information.
Moose
Andrew Gullen wrote:
>on 2004/08/25 1:44 AM, Moose at olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>
>>And yes, iso 800 on a Can*n is lower noise than 400 on an E-1. Does it
>>really matter where you get the speed?
>>
>>
>
>It does if you care about selective focus.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|