On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:49:07AM -0400, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> For years the only two lenses I had for my OM-1 was a 50/1.4 and the
> 200/4. The 200/4 lived on the camera most of the time despite shooting
> slow speed K64 almost exclusively. I've been shooting more wide angle
> in the last couple of years but I rarely go less than 24mm (full frame)
> and I can't go less than 17mm since that's the shortest I have. But the
> 17mm rarely comes out so I can't see myself shooting at a 14mm
> equivalent and especially at the price of that lens no matter how good
> it is.
I had a telecentric view of the world for years, too. Even so, I found that
the 14-42 wasn't wide enough, and bought the 11-22; the 7-14 was nice, but
$DEITY, is it heavy, and part of the thing I like about the E-410 is its
size and weight. The widest OM lens I have is 21, and I haven't felt the
need for anything wider - but there are times when I need something that
wide, and nothing longer will do.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|