But landscapes are usually adaptable to building a panorama with
digital. You can go really wide really cheap and you can also usually
get away with no panorama head as well.
Chuck Norcutt
Andrew Fildes wrote:
> 2. Yes, it's really good. If you can't quite afford it the 14-54mm at
> around half the price is excellent. You might like to check the new
> comparisons of the 12-60mm with the 14-42mm on dpreview -
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0804/08040703olympus1442review.asp
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0804/08040704olympus1260review.asp
>
> 3. They're primes so probably - I love the 50/1.4 on digital and have
> my eye out for bargain 100/2.8 and 200/4 which some here love so
> much. The 21mm f3.5 has a good reputation on Canon and some have
> reported that the slower versions perform better than the expensive
> f2 versions on various bodies. But none of them are going to give you
> a wide enough perspective for landscape (you'd need the excellent
> 18/3.5 to get a modest 36mm perspective!)
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On 15/04/2008, at 9:07 AM, Bob_Benson@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> 2. Will I see a significant difference between the 12-60 and the
>> 510 kit
>> lens ? That is, would you put the 12-60 on the 510?
>>
>> 3. Will I see a significant difference between the high-end Zuikos
>> (the
>> 100 f2, 35 f2, 50 MIJ, 21 f2) mounted on the E-3/510 compared to
>> the
>> 12-60? (Since I'm landscape oriented, the autofocus is not a
>> real big
>> deal for me.)
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|