> I remember when Ag first laid hands on my 28/2, he went ga-ga and when he
> tried to give it back, his fingers remained stuck to it for a while. To
> rehabilitate my photography, I ought to put it on an OM-5D and shoot with
> it exclusively for several days on end. The bad habit I tend towards with
> zooms is to let them creep out to the long end and stay there. Over the
> years I've become too much a telephoto shooter. Nothing wrong with that
> except that I bore myself often enough.
Here in Alaska, there have been two lenses which have dominated my
shooting. The 28/2 and the 350/4.5. I've shot more with those two
lenses on the 6D than with everything else combined. The 28/2 is about
as perfect of a lens as has ever been made.
The 50/1.8 is sharp enough--no issues there. I've got early versions
and late versions. The 50/1.4 I've got late versions. The final series
of 1.8 and 1.4 lenses are pretty much equals. I think the 1.8 is a
touch sharper for landscape work, but the 1.4 has a slightly more
pleasing look (to me). At or near infinity, the 1.8 would be the
better lens, but at that near/mid distance, I think the 1.4 is the
better lens as it provides better subject/background separation.
Back to the 28/2 for a second. The 35/2 and 28/2 are my favorites, but
the 28/2 is what goes with me on EVERY hike. When shooting people or
B&W, give me the 35/2.
AK Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|