If you were mostly using an 85/1.8, I would guess that you were mostly
taking pictures of people.
If the f1.8 was for low light, a DSLR will probably be a very
different experience ... a fast aperture helps focusing but digital
works well with fairly high ISO settings.
If a shallow DOF is very important, then a full frame DSLR is the most
promising direction but they are not small nor light.
The 11-22 is a very nice lens. However the Zuiko 50/2 might be pretty
close match to your experience with the 85/1.8 although with more DOF.
Scan the archives for David Issarri (sp?) for some sample images.
-jeff
On 10/29/06, Sandy Harris <sandyinchina@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I mostly do travel photography, so size & weight is important.
> My last rig was a Pentax MX, and I was happy with only an
> 85 1.8, a 28 mm and a teleconverter. Most shots were with
> the 85; the 28 was only used occasionally, teleconverter
> almost never.
>
> So now I'm thinking E-400 and a few lenses. Some questions
> come up.
>
> Mainly, I'm thinking of using a Zuiko designed for OM series
> as a short tele. 50 1.4? 50 1.2? 55 1.2? Anyone care to
> comment on the relative merits of these? Or their suitability
> for use on e-400?
>
> Or, since using old Zuikos requires an adapter, should I get
> a Canon or Nikon or ... adapter instead? What would be the
> best lens for this use?
>
> How good is the 11-22 zoom? That strikes me as the obvious
> choice for wide angle, given that no-one seems to make what
> I'd really want, a fast wide prime. 14-54 perhaps?
>
> --
> Sandy Harris
> Quanzhou, Fujian, China
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|