Sandy Harris:
>> Why not get a 200 or 300 mm prime?
----------
I plan to take only the E-1 and two lenses. A single prime,
especially one as long as 200mm (on 4/3rds) is too
specialized. I took an Alaska cruise once before, bringing an
OM-2n with 24/2.8, 50/1.8, 100/2.8, and 200/5 lenses. I felt I
was well equipped, except at the long end. This trip will
include National Parks, where hopefully there will be wildlife
to observe.
----------
Ken Norton:
> 70-300
> Don't even hesitate on this one!
...
>I'm ALMOST of the opinion that the DZ 70-300 is a "must have"
> lens. The minimum aperture is a bit slim for some of my
> work, but the lens is extremely compact, lightweight and
> sharp enough and good enough to warrant having. ...
----------
Is this recommendation due to the longer reach, or better
quality of the 70-300 over the 40-150 3.5? I still wonder how
much of the longer reach will be usable on a handheld E-1.
In an unrelated list message yesterday, Ken said "Me thinks
Olympus actually did put Image-Stabilization in that E-1." I
agree that I can sometimes pull off pictures on the E-1 with
slower shutter speeds than I could on my OM2n, but not much.
Should I bring a monopod? Would it help or hurt on a ship
running its engines?
----- Larry Woods
lmwoods@xxxxxxx
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|