FWIW, I have both the 14 and the 20. I would almost call the 20 life
changing, but that would be overly dramatic. I have never been a fan of the
50, and have been lukewarm on the 35, but I really took immediately to the
40 equivelent.
And both lenses are great, or perhaps greatly cooked by SW.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Braun
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 8:42 AM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] Errrrr.... nevermind
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2/6/2014 12:59 PM, Paul Braun wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > However, it's also out of my budget range at the moment. I'm going
> > after
> > the Panny 14/2.5.
>
> I wonder if you might be suffering from GAS brought on by SAD, Seasonally
> Affective Disorder related Gear Acquisition
> Disorder - SADGAS. :-)
>
> I have no excuse where I live, but ... Yet far too often, I find myself
> NEEDING some sort of gear or other. This leads
> to a phase of endless, obsessive searches for information and reviews
> about the choices and as to sources and prices.
>
> Recognizing that there are pieces of gear that will really improve my
> experience of photography, and perhaps, on
> occasion, actual results - AND - that pure GAS, the need to buy something,
> are both strong forces, I try to calm myself
> down, wait a bit, and see if the urgency goes away. GAS goes away, or
> finds a new target.
>
> If it were me, there are warning signs here. I've decided I really need
> something, but instead of letting issues of
> performance and usefulness drive me, I've gone for price as the deciding
> factor.
>
> That starts me wondering if I will in fact find the new thing a good
> acquisition, or, as happens to me a bit too often,
> just another piece of gear that doesn't have a real place and usefulness.
>
> The 14/2.5 is less wide than the 12-50 @ 12 mm, and only a stop faster.
> It's also not that much wider than the 20/1.7,
> but a stop slower. If I give up on the idea of a real SWA zoom, might I
> not already have all I need with the other two
> lenses?
>
> Might I not be better off biding my time and saving my pennies for a lens
> that would really improve what I can do?
>
> GAS-X Moose
>
>
Now why do you need to go injecting logic into this argument??
I guess my thinking was that the IQ with the 14 was better than the 12-50?
Maybe I need to do some more digging - I may have misinterpreted what I
saw. I've been "brought up" to believe that primes are always better than
zooms.
Maybe I'll give some thought to the SWA zoom and hold off for now. I do
know that I'm waiting to see what that new fast/long zoom will sell for and
how it reviews, but that will have to wait until the wife gets a new job or
hits Powerball. Or maybe both.
Dangit. Now you've gone and suggested rational thinking. Poop.
--
Paul Braun
Certified Music Junkie
"Music washes from the soul the dust of everyday life." -- Berthold Auerbach
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|