On 4/17/2013 6:09 AM, Chris Trask wrote:
>> 1: That is partly true,
>>
>> 2: There are many people who don't have one who don't know that they
>> really want one, yet.
>>
> I guess there are three types of zuikoholics:
>
> 1. Those who have one.
>
> 2. Those who want one.
>
> 3. Those who can't afford one.
I don't want one. I have almost never wanted one. It simply doesn't focus close
enough to be a general purpose, walk
around lens for me. The best 35-(80-105) I've used is the Tamron SP
35-80/2.8-3.8, which I see you have as well. Focuses
close and tack sharp.
If I were you, I'd stick with the Tamrons you have. If you enjoy collecting
third tier lenses, fine, enjoy it. But if
you want good flower images, stick to the two Tamrons for actual shooting.
I agree with Brian and Chuck that you have upped your game a lot with this
recent work. I suspect it's in good part the
use of a first rate lens.
AG has touted the magic of the Z 35-80/2.8 for so long that I might pay $100
for one, just to see if I can see that
magic myself, but that's my limit.
I know I am difficult. I really didn't like the 90/2 I had. The closer it got,
the softer it got. Shouldn't have been
labeled 'Macro'.
Fourth Category Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|