Jeff Keller wrote:
> I completely overlooked what should have been obvious ... your 28-300
> Tamron. My thoughts were of a mostly single vendor kit, either N*kon
> or C*non.
>
I"m not up on N kit these days. C makes a big white L 28-300/3.5-5.6 IS
USM. Only costs $2,200 and only weighs 3.7 lbs (1670g). Maybe that's the
kind of thing you were thinking about? :-) If I ever go C IS, I'll
leave the shorter fls to other lenses and get the 70-300 DO, lighter,
smaller and half the price.
> The quibbles could be important if numbers are being compared. I would
> probably carry my E300 rather than the E1 unless I expected to be out
> in the rain for a LONG time. But my reaction was more first hand than
> numbers.
>
> I had just carried my 5D down into the Haleakula crater and back out.
> My E-System would not have been as much work. The most noticeable
> difference isn't just the weight of the backpack but also the weight
> of the tripod mounted camera with a lens carried in one hand ready to
> use. The 5D with the 50-250 OM Zuiko mounted is within what I'm
> comfortable carrying but if it were a 1DSII or a C*non L lens, it
> surely wouldn't be.
>
Well, that's a different kettle of lava. The OM 50-250 is a little
lighter than the DZ 50-200 (somehow that doesn't seem right!), but the
combo sounds like more than a handful.
> I agree that the newer plastic bodied lenses can make a big difference
> in weight. If Olympus keeps high optical quality for their blue line
> lenses, an E4xx may well become a "successor" to the OM. Weight and
> size could probably beat anything that could be done with a 5D.
>
So one hopes. Although I wasn't happy to read in Jon's review things
like needing to go into the menu to change iso. I would have to look
closer into usability.
> We definitely approach fun and games with photography from different
> viewpoints.
That's what makes it fun!
> I enjoy using a tripod and generally don't take pictures
> of moving objects.
Not that far apart in some respects. The vast majority of my shooting is
of things that don't move or move slowly. I shoot critters when they
present themselves, but mostly shoot landscape and macro. Lots of water
shots, and it moves, but not in such a way that a tripod doesn't work.
On the other hand, I use a tripod less with the 5D than I did with film.
The superb high isos let me get away without it quite a bit. Within easy
reach of my right hand are a CF tripod with QR mount and 5D with QR
plate, but I'll admit the camera goes out without the tripod more often
these days. I do find it freeing.
Also, the image of you taking an hour to set up and get "The Shot" in
the Porcupines with AG reminds me that I am often with other(s) when in
the most scenic areas. While I get a lot of slack as the documenter*, if
I spent an hour in one spot, I'd have to be sure I was the one with the
car keys, or resign myself to being late for after hike imbibing and
eating. :-)
> Getting quality at least equal to 35mm Velvia is
> very important to me.
Never shot Velveeta in my life, although I've seen it that others have
shot. Lots of ...interesting... colors. I think the 5D is already ahead
of it.
> I haven't even considered putting together a set
> of fixed focal length digital lenses.
Doesn't make sense except for special uses. The newer zooms don't give
anything away to primes but speed, sometimes not even that, and linear
distortion, which isn't much of an issue for me anymore.
> I've been looking for one or
> maybe two zooms which would have better image quality than the 5D. The
> 24-105/4 L lens apparently doesn't achieve that at the long end.
>
My little kit lists don't include the 24-105 because I'm not sure it's
any better than the 28-105 and it costs over four times as much. I don't
need IS at those fls at that price. Of course, as you have seen, I have
a pretty steady hand. The reviews at FM seem to indicate that the 24-105
isn't any better optically. Some say their experience with both is one
way and others the other, but nobody who has tried them together says
the new lens is clearly superior in basic optical quality. And a lot of
comments about softness over ~85mm. Of course you are paying for more
WA, IS and L build quality and sealing.
You might want to arrange to try out some EF mount lenses, C and third
party, in your desired fl and speed ranges. I think you may have an
unrealistic idea of the quality out there - or not - but then you would
know.
> Depending on what happens with the next E-System announcement, I will
> be buying either an E-System body or an EOS lens such as the 24-105/4
> (I believe I saw someone switching over to the 24-105 from a C*non
> 28-1xx because they thought the image qualitiy was better
Yes, and I've also seen the reverse.
Moose
Our Maine friend Barbara is even more tolerant after I gave her prints
of this shot for herself and her children
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Maine/Camden/GTreeBarb.htm>.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|