If I had the money I'd pick up a 35-70 3.5-4.5, I hear it is a decent lens
and it is so SMALL. Would make a nice walk-around lens I think. I think a
50/1.4 silvernose would be fun to try too, since people say they have a
different look than the newer versions. I'll probably never buy one of
those, people on ebay are still charging $70+ for old silvernose 50/1.4
lenses which is about what I paid for my >1,100,000 50/1.4 that is said to
be a lot sharper. Someday I'll probably pick up one of the 35-70's though,
they usually go cheap.
--
Chris Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana
260-747-3962
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio
http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work!
On 5/7/09 3:36 PM, "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> C.H.Ling wrote:
>> It is good to know you both don't mind this issue, I agree it is not too bad
>> but I have another macro lens that do better in this area so I can choose it
>> for that purpose. Actually almost every lens has its weak point, that's why I
>> need 28 different zuikos to suit every of my needs :-)
>>
>
> Darn! What a piker I am, with only 20 different Zuikos. :-)
>
> The total is higher than that, due to duplicates. Anybody need a 50/1.4
> SC, 50/1.8, 75-150/4, 50/3.5 MC, 35-70/3.5-4.5?
>
> Where did that third 75-150 come from? Are they breeding? If so, why not
> a baby 50/3.5 or multiple new standard 50mms?
>
> I do have 20+ non-Zuiko OM mount lenses, though. Not sure exactly how
> many, as I see a couple on the list that I'm sure I sold, but apparently
> didn't update on the list.
>
> Where did all these lenses come from, anyway? ;-)
>
> 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/
|