robert smith wrote:
>I have now re-subscribed from home as I was getting no work done at work.
>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.
>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.
>
>Getting my OM1n into good shape is high on my list.
>I will also get some more Zuiko lenses.
>This is where I would like some guidance.
>
Some Zuikos were better than others when new. All OM zuikos are now
rather old. Some of them have had tough lives and/or difficult
experiences. Generalities about indivudual designs such as found here,
in Gary's lens tests, etc. can be a big help. One also needs to try to
find good examples. If, as you say above, a lens "never brought out what
I could see", that may be a characteristic of the particular example,
rather than that model.
I know lots of folks look for bargains in lenses which are cosmetically
not too good looking, but have perfect looking glass. I think that's a
fair way to go bargain hunting, but one should be aware that signs of
rough handling may also increase the risk of internal misalignment or
other maladies that can only be found through testing.
>Zooms
>Hopefully I am buying a 35-70mm f3.6
>
An excellent model. I personally prefer the 3.5-4.5 in that focal length
range for its diminutive size and low weight. If I go bigger and
heavier, I prefer 35-105 or longer.
>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?
>
The great, common bargain in this range is the Tamron SP 60-300/3.8-5.4.
A good one will be sharp at all focal lengths and all but the smallest
apertures and it has a really excellent macro capability. The 50-250
Zuiko is apparently a very good lens, but too many of them have an
unrepairable clouding of a rearish element. For speed, the Tamron SP
80-200/2.8 is one of the great MF lenses of all time and the Tokina AT-X
is a close second. Oly never made anything in this size/speed range.
>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.
>
There were at least 3 different 50/1.4 and 5 50/1.8 designs over the
years. If you were to switch from a late 50/1.8 to an early 1.4, you
would find a considerable loss of image quality. Look at Gary's tests
and the eSIF for inof on performance and how to tell which is which.
>Is a 135mm f2.8 a good lens?
>
The Zuiko is an excellent design.
>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.
>
Maybe. I have a hard time keeping from taking pics of things too small
of far away and then wondering what I was thinking when the film comes
back. 135 mm is a length some people love and others don't like. Focal
length preferences are a highly individual thing
>I can always get a longer lens later.
>Presumably the 135 f2.8 be far brighter and easier to focus than the 100-200
>f5 which I struggle with?
>
Oh yes!
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|