But Chuck, reread. The 70 was left out because of the fish/fowl thing.
Ironically, when I was shooting OM's with (gasp) film, I went to extremes.
For some reason that made no sense, I got a 135/2.8. Don't know why, mid
life crisis, thought it looked fool, just had too much money, but the result
was that my 100 got mostly retired. I found that as someone that shot mostly
the 21 and 28, if I wanted a tele, the extra reach just filled the bill. So,
want a 70? bet an 85/90/100/105 would do the job. And as Americans, with the
70 we would have to take a few steps closer than if we had a 100, and we are
culturally adverse to exercise.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Norcutt
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 8:04 AM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] Legacy lens for copy work
That's a surprise. Just look at all the old 70mm primes out there. :-)
Actually, I've always wondered about that hole in the typical lens
lineup. We have 24, 50, 90/100, 200, 400. We also have 17/18, 35,
70... oops 85, 135, 250/300, 500/600... wait, why was 70mm always left out?
Chuck Norcutt
On 12/21/2015 3:15 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
The 35mm 4/3 lens is definitely worth the try. I'm not loving it
because 70mm equivalent focal length is my fish/fowl thing. Too long
to be short, too short to be long. Just an unloved focal length for
me.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
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/
|