On 12/9/2014 8:37 AM, Paul Braun wrote:
I guess I'm trying to decide if having the long end (600mm EQ) or the short end
(18mm EQ) will benefit me the most.
An easy one for me. I shoot WAY more images with the 75-300. Static landscapes, the first thing some of us think of as a
use for the 9-18, are easy to capture with stitched shots from a less wide lens. They often require more than the FOV of
18 mm eq. anyway, and panoramas with a super wide are a problem, 'cause the anamorphic effects make stitching trickier.
All you have to do is sweep across a landscape @ 9 mm and watch everything move around, to see that a few more shots
with a shorter lens is a better bet.
The super wides are more about perspective, close quarters and things that move
too much for panorama shots.
Plus the 9-18 is $100 more. Tough choice. Eventually I want both, though, which
would give me pretty much gapless coverage from 9-300 in native u43 glass.
That IS fun!
Rangy 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/
|