Ken Norton wrote:
>
> .... However, this particular photographer probably could have gotten by with
> buying just one Nikon and lens and just had it sitting there looking pretty
> while continuing to shoot with the gear that he wants to use. Excuse?
> Olympus lenses are better.
>
In my very limited personal experience, that has not been an accurate
generality. While I loved my OM-1, the 50/1.8 lens I bought with it was
soft compared to the 50/2 Nikkor on the FTn which they replaced.
Flip side - The Zuiko 35-70/4 is WAY better than the Nikkor 43-86 zoom.
I think there was more than one version of the Nikkor, but the one my
dad had was a stinker.
The 35-70/4 was also better than the Zuiko 50/1.8. Yes, indeed, the
50/1.8s did get better, but that early one was a better portrait than
landscape lens. I'm glad I took my backpacking trip into Havasu canyon
pre OM-1. The huge, feathery piece of dried minerals from spray on top
the lower falls fell off a few years later, rendering later images less
impressive. You can see it close up here.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Havasu/pages/Havasu20.htm>
And in context to the left of the main falls.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Havasu/pages/Havasu11.htm>
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|