Sandy Harris wrote:
> OK, that rules out that idea.
>> For travel with an E-400, I'd want the DZ 18-180
>>
>> ... For a more modest expenditure, the 14-54 is an excellent lens.
>>
>
> More my style, I think. I don't want to carry a heavy lens
> or a tripod, and shooting handheld I wouldn't expect to
> get much use out of the higher end of the 18-180 range.
> On the other hand, I would use the 14-18 range for
> scenic and architecture shots.
>
With the option of OM lenses with adapter clearly not for you, I've done
what I can to help. Now the questions become less complex and more a
matter of personal style and preference.
Personally, I have a tele 'eye' and have regularly used a zoom that
gives a 35 mm equivalent view of 480 mm handheld for a few years, so the
35m eq 360 mm of the 18-180 seems a little short to me. If I had an
E-400 and 14-54, I would be looking for something longer long before
something shorter.
> But if I'm shooting mostly at the short tele end of the
> range, maybe the 50 f2 macro lens and 11-22 zoom?
That combo would drive me bonkers, but may be just the ticket for you.
I suspect that we travel to different kinds of places and shoot
different subjects. Good luck with your shopping.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|