usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> ......
>
> I have a recently john CLA'a OM2N that I could risk on horseback for a
> day (4T will be safe in Lowepro).
Why the 2n in harm's way? The 4T is VERY well sealed against dust
compared to the 2n.
Have you read the "crash test"?
3. The OM4Ti is hung in the grid of the air outlet of a sand blasting company
for 2 hours, so that dust, dirt and
sand can intrude deep into the mechanics.
<http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/crash-test.txt>
> So for a full day of jostling/dust dare I risk a 50 f2? I can hear Marnie now
> saying I've already violated my own "Gordon's first law of equestrian
> sports"---(never underestimate a horse's ability to make you look like a
> idiot)
>
I've developed to the point where I can easily do that without the aid
of animals.
> The 50 f2 essentially provides its own hood and is fairly compact. I don't
> have a small normal range zoom of nice quality
>
Shame on you! :-) Actually, all the Zuikos in that category and most
others fall down in the macro area. If you don't want to risk the 50/2,
a 50/1.4 or 1.8 with Viv Macro Telextender is quite good for shots of
small natural subjects. It makes a 50/1.4 into a 100/2.8, with the good
working distance of a longer lens, and focuses directly to 1:1
> though I could use an odd Sigma 30-70 with some reasonable macro ability that
> is OK stopped down a bit. Also the 85 F2 with a couple ext tubes might be
> just the ticket.
Never tried that, but others say it's good. Will you be using this stuff
away from horses and flying dust and dirt? Using tubes means opening up
the camera lots. The viv mentioned above covers the whole range without
changing lens/tubes
> The Viv s1 90 might be too big but is in the running.
>
A true macro is always the best choice for IQ. I haven't used a 50/2,
but have seen images taken with it, and it seem to suffer from the same
or worse bokeh as the other 50s. Shooting close up to flowers, insects,
spiders, etc. with the 50/1.8 and background objects a few feet away
gives me busy and/or donut-y bokeh. And the 50/3.5 is worse. The various
90mm macros seem to have better bokeh as well as better working distance.
> the Z 135 with tube looks simple and tough (perhaps with Porta 400 for that
> FL) but might take up too much space.
>
I wonder again about dust sealing.
> The G9 can handle the longer shots with the approx 200mm with IS.
>
It's also a fine CU/macro camera.
> Perhaps a nice flora tope shot awaits, if the pesky :-) Monarchs don't hog
> the show. I do recall Jeff K's nice shot of the Monarchs with the Tam 400.
> Well, perhaps not the best choice for this.
> I'll probably ziplock the kit/bubble wrap and put it in a yet to be purchased
> small backpack of some sort. I recall crossing a rain swollen stream a couple
> years ago where the horse stepped in a hole resulting in an unwanted swim.
> Any comments appreciated. I will try and post anything decent.
>
Indecent may work, as well, if the opportunity presents itself.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|