I got the E-330 so I can do OM lenses with the live view on it. Easier to
focus. I got the 500 first and the 330 second. I like both the bodies. I
didn't really think about selling the 500. It wouldn't get me anything close
to what I paid. I'd like to replace the 14-45mm for a 14-54mm. I'm not sure
about the 40-150mm. It's an okay lens,
Allen
>From: "Johann Thorsson" <johann@xxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Which lens would you choose
>Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 19:53:14 -0700
>
>
>What I have *really* hard time understanding is why you need two bodies for
>all this. I would understand it if you had an OM-X strictly for the OM
>lenses, and then one digital body for the DZs (and the OM lenses). But
>having two digtal bodies and want to use one just for OMs and the other for
>DZ does not really make sens to me. Why don't you simply use your E-330
>for
>all your photography? It should be sufficient and then you could use the
>money currently invested in your E-500 to buy (even more) lenses and
>teleconverters.
>
>J
>
>
> >
> > I'm sorry Chuck to be the one that seems to be always ending up in your
> > lap.
> >
> > About the lens issue. I've thoughtr about it often. There is a bias I
> > guess
> > in favor of bigger is better, lol. But it doesn't really make much sense
> > at
> > all. I love doing close macro work. The "micro" world holds just as much
> > for
> > me as the "macro" world does.
> >
> > But I have my E-500 which has a 35mm macro that I guess could cover
>that.
> > But that would be against what I had set up this OM group to cover. If
>you
> > had a chance to get 1, maybe 2 OM lenses for close work, what would you
> > get
> > of quality?
> >
> > Allen
> >
> >
> >>From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>Subject: [OM] Re: Which lens would you choose
> >>Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:55:10 -0500
> >>
> >>I don't understand why you're putting such (exclusively) long lenses on
> >>an E-330. If you were putting equivalent focal lengths on a 35mm camera
> >>you're talking about focal lengths from 120-1000mm. I would venture
> >>that 90% of most photos are taken at less than 120mm equivalent.
> >>
> >>Having said that, there was a time in my life when I used to shoot
> >>almost exclusively with a Zuiko 200/4. But I'm just curious. Why such
> >>long lenses?
> >>
> >>Chuck Norcutt
> >>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more?.then map the best route!
http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag1&FORM=MGAC01
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|