On 14 Jan 2005, at 01:20, robert smith wrote:
>
> I have now re-subscribed from home as I was getting no work done at
> work.
>
Don't worry -- you're welcome both from work and home.
> Previously subscribed as robsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> It seems I need to invest a bit to get a reasonable kit together to
> cover most things I would like to photograph.
There you go....you're not yet a zuikoholic, but you're dead set on
becoming one. I, for one, salute you for that decision.
> I think this is the main reason why I was a bit dissapointed with my
> OM10.
> I often had a great subject and lighting but only had the two lenses
> which never brought out what I could see.
Heh, I've got some 30-odd lenses laying around, from wide to tele, and
I used to have the opposite problem: hauled along so much gear that I
was so busy carrying my camerabag that I didn't get any pictures done.
I've taken the almost opposite approach now: rather than dragging along
every lens that I might possibly need, I bring one (1), and force
myself to work with thatone to get the results I need. Yes,
occasionally it's cumbersome when you've brought the 300mm and a
macro-opportunity presents itself ;) -- but mostly it's challenging and
educational.
Ok, on occasion I may bring 3 primes to be covered, but no more than
that. I get so many more pictures taken when the bag is filled with
unexposed film, than with glass.
>
> Getting my OM1n into good shape is high on my list.
Good choice.
> I will also get some more Zuiko lenses.
> This is where I would like some guidance.
>
Ohhboy, I hope you just won the lottery. If you're going to follow the
aggregate advice of this list, you're going to do a *lot* of shopping
in the near future....
> Zooms
> Hopefully I am buying a 35-70mm f3.6
I am not much of a zoom-person. I feel (but this is personal to me),
that with a zoom I tend to become lazy: rather than move to frame the
shot (which typically also means "step a tad to the left/right"), a
zoom makes me just "roughly frame, then snap" without really thinking
about the motive, framing, exposure etc. In other words, having
something be "cumbersome" is, to me, an advantage in that it makes me
more careful and considerate.
Also, I have a dislike for using artificial light (flash etc), but
prefer to make do with natural light + perhaps 1-2 reflectors. Thus,
the faster speed of a typical prime comes handy.
That's just my choice.
That said, the 35-70/3.6 is a neat lens with good optical
characteristics. The 35-80/2.8 is said to be an even better one ;)
> I have a 100-200mm f5 which is quite dusty inside and a bit rough and
> slightly loose on its zoom slide but seems to work ok, but not
> economically viable to have it overhauled.
> It may be better for me to get another zoom from 70mm up. Any views on
> this?
>
I'd say "no". Get a prime for the longer focals: you're gonna need the
extra brightness of the viewfinder that a prime can offer over a zoom.
> Prime Lenses
> I have a very tidy 28mm f2.8
> I am getting a 50mm f1.4 to replace my f1.8 with a tiny flake chipped
> off one of the lenses deep inside.
>
> I design race cars and occasionally go along and watch. I like to take
> pictures of the cars in action but I am quickly realising that there
> is a reason for the very expensive lenses on photographers cameras and
> I should stop attempting this with lesser equipment.
I believe that we have one or two very accomplished motor-sports
photographers on the list. I am sure that they will disagree with the
assessment that OM-gear is "lesser equipment". It requires a different
skill-set to use an OM than a "Wunderbrik", to be sure, but the results
can be equally stunning....
> I do, however, go cycling with our local club and I can get
> conciderably closer to the action.
>
> Is a 135mm f2.8 a good lens?
I love mine. It goes in my "bright" kit, with the 55/1.2 and 24/2.
Incidentally, this also makes for my three most frequently used
OM-lenses in '04 (closely followed by 85/2, btw.)
Avoid the 135/3.5, though. It's attractively cheap and compact, but
doesn't seem to come even close to the resolving power of the /2.8. At
least, my /2.8 is vastly superior to my /3.5 in every respect.
Another good, yet affordable, option for this kind of photography might
be the 200/4. The 200/5 is said to be optically a tad "better" by some,
but the 200/4 is a tad brighter -- and I can't really tell that much of
a difference between the quality of the /4 and /5.
> I have sat peering through my 100-200 set at about 135 to see what
> situations I might use such a lens.
> I have concluded that it would be within my price range and a good
> lens to get and that I should stop trying to take pictures which need
> the longer more expensive lenses. I can always get a longer lens
> later.
True.
> Presumably the 135 f2.8 be far brighter and easier to focus than the
> 100-200 f5 which I struggle with?
>
Ohh, absolutely, no comparison.
Of course, the Zuikoholic answer would be, that you should get one of
each lens, and figure out what you like or not....but then we're back
at the "winning the lottery" part.
--thomas
ps: glad to have more Europeans on the list. I think we're far
outnumbered by our friends from across the pond.....
>
> Rob
>
>
> Robert and Ruth Smith
> robnruth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (01487) 831 982 (Home)
> 07792 23 84 33 (Mobile Rob)
> 07870 86 57 39 (Mobile Ruth)
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|