While the 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 may be a "good" lens, it's not one I would choose.
There's a reason my 35mm kit includes 17mm, 21mm, 24mm, 28mm and 35mm lenses,
plus a 19-35mm zoom: I like to get wide sometimes. And I like 'em fast, too.
Of these lenses, only the 17mm and the zoom are slower than f/2.8 and three
(21, 24, 35) are f/2. (The 35mm f/2.8 shift doesn't count.)
So, if I am allowed to buy a lens of my choice instead of having to accept a
"default" lens I don't really want, and if I decide the E-300 is for me, I
would start off with the 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 to better satisfy my wide/fast
jones. I would also have to get the 50mm f/2 macro. As I have said more than
once, the 100mm f/2 Zuiko is one of my favorite Zuikos, and since I do a lot of
macro stuff, then the 50mm f/2 would absolutely have to be in the house.
A fellow's got to start somewhere, I guess, and this would be my jumping off
point if -- and it's still a fairly big "if" -- I decide to venture over to the
dark side, all the while keeping one foot on the floor and one eye on the light.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> But, according to the review on www.dpreview.com the 14-45 is a good
> lens ...
>
> Chris
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|