Thanks for making the same points I was thinking, and with more actual
experience with the fast primes. Particularly now that shooting with OMs
isn't my primary means of photography, I like the idea of the compact,
light lenses of the original OM concept.
In my case, that's mostly what I started with anyway. :-) My Zuiko
regular prime lens kit is 18/3.5, 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 28/2, 35/2.8, 50/1.4,
1.8, 3.5, 85/2, 100/2.8, 135/3.5 & 2.8, 200/4 & 5 and 300/4.5. Identical
to yours except for no 16mm and added teles.
I particularly like the 200/5 for walk around shooting, so amazingly
small and light compared to its faster sibling. 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.8
& 200/5 make a great walk around kit in a small bag. I still like zooms.
The 35-105 is currently on the OM-1 with film in it.
I do disagree though about the 50mm lenses. The latest 50/1.8 is
excellent, but no better than the latest 50/1.4 and the 50/3.5 is
sharper than either. The 50/1.4 >1,085,000 is a fabulous all round lens,
with very even performance across apertures and fewer bokeh issues than
the other two. The 50/3.5 is a smashing macro lens. The 135/4.5 & 80/4
Auto are great macros too, but require tube or bellows.
Moose
Warren Kato wrote:
> Not to dissuade you from your quest but may I suggest a different kit.
> 16/3.5 a good choice
> 21/3.5 vs 21/2: for whatever reason, perhaps I had a bad 21/2, but I
> preferred the 3.5 version for its 49mm filters, and overall contrast
> across the field.
> 24/2.8 v. 24/2: also I like the 2.8 version. One of my sharpest lens.
> I found substantial spherical aberrations in my f2 wide open or down a
> couple of stops
> 28/2 is the sharpest wide in my stable. I had several 2.8s and I was
> never happy with them.
> 35/2.8 v. 35/2 I liked the 35/2 over the 2.8 but since it was the
> last lens with 55m filters I let it go.
> 50/3.5 v. 50/1.8: although the 1.8 is acknowledged as the sharpest,
> the 3.5 macro is much more versatile.
> 85/2 keep this for the bokeh.
> 100/2.8 v. 100/2: The 100/2 was probably my favorite lens but I
> needed the case. The smooth rendition of the 2.8 makes up for this.
> 135/3.5 v. 135/2.8 This 3.5 version works nicely adapted to the
> digital E series.
> 200/5 v. 200/4 Same here.
>
> If you get my drift, I ended up keeping all of the 49mm filter
> lens--not because they were better but fit Maitani's vision of a
> smaller system. I can get almost all of the above (have to deselect a
> couple of teles) plus a 4T and 3 body in an Lowe Orion. My digital OM
> stuff is considerably more bulky and takes a full pack to fit it in.
> E-330, L10, 8mm, 7-14, 14-54, and 50-200.
>
> I hope this helps but know it really doesn't.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|