Dammit Joel, the 100/2.8 is the only one of those I have. I'll never
own a 180/2.8 (no real need, and CDFO issues), have the 28 in both f2
and f3.5 versions, and the 90/2 doesn't really appeal to me. Suppose
I'm safe for now.
Earl
Joel Wilcox wrote:
>At 07:40 PM 4/13/2005 -0400, Earl you wrote:
>
>
>>Walt, I pretty much feel the way you do, BUT.... even the digital talk
>>teaches me something, and a lot of talk there is stuff like "the 50/f3.5
>>kicks butt on an E-x!" that makes me feel good. Now all I need is a
>>50/f3.5...
>>
>>
>
>So does the 28/2, 90/2, and 180/2.8. My 100/2.8 is good and sharp, but not
>as neutral as the others (warms things up noticeably -- little tweak to the
>auto WB might be all it needs, or just postprocess). I have to leave
>something for Ken to sort out!
>
>Higher stops are great, too (f11, f16). I'm certain now that Olympus
>doesn't recommend them because the camera will usually underexpose without
>the precaution of exposure compensation.
>
>Perhaps that seems like a pain, but not to me. I get images back with the
>familiar "stamp" of these beloved lenses. Pretty darn nice.
>
>I have a little trouble focusing the 28/2 and 180/2.8. But the 90/2 just pops!
>
>Joel W.
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|