> > When backpacking, I can carry almost my entire kit with me.
> Well, knowing you that'd be an 100/2.8 and a 24/2.8 and a
> body....now I
> am confused, you say "almost your entire kit" -- which of
> these three items do you leave at home?
ROFL
Believe it or not, the 24/2.8 takes a back seat to the 35/2.8.
The 35/2.8 is silvernosed, you know.
Seriously, my most recent backpacking trip (one week), had the
following equipment: OM-2S, OM-4, 24/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/3.5,
100/2.8 and 200/4. Oh, and a few extension tubes, a tripod,
monopod and a cute little Olympus XA.
I left the IS-3, 135/3.5 and 50/1.8 home. I had to draw the
line somewhere.
Now, with the partial transition to digital, who knows what I'd
pack. I'd be almost tempted to take just the IS-3 and E-1 (with
the 14-54 and a couple odd Zuikos. For nearly everything I shot
(except for the macro work), the IS-3 would have done just as
well as my OM-Zuiko kit.
Speaking of such, have you noticed that the prices of IS-3s are
running around $165-185? That 35-180 zoom is outstanding and
worth the price of admission right there. That and the ability
to do double-exposures. The AF is quite fast, too.
AG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|