Neal,
I love the wide angles. Except for the 24 shift and the 20 macro I
have every Zuiko under 50mm. I have exposed more film between 16-28mm
than with all the other lenses combined. I have the 8mm, but do not find
too much use for it. I used to shoot with the 16mm and 18mm so much that
I had a backup of each. Denton aquired one of the spares from me early
last year while I was thinning the photo gear out, I think it was the
16, I don't remeber who on the list got the spare 18. The image quality
of the wide angle Zuikos is simply outstanding. I do not think there is
a bad design in the bunch.
You will find use for the 21. 3mm does not sound like a lot when
going between the 21 and 24, but it is enough if you work in tight
places.
I do get use out of the longer lenses and find that the 180/2
produces some incredible images. It is far superior to the 180/2.8 or
either of the 200s. I only added this lens a few years ago, but I find
myself looking for reasons to use it. In long lenses I also have the
300, 400, 500, 600, and 1000. The 1000/11 has not been used since I
added the 600/6.5. The 600 is a great super telephoto. I am not overly
pleased with the contrast of the 500 cat, but it is amazingly small and
light. That is sometimes enough advantage to bring it along over the 400
or 600.
Mark
rockwell@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> I'm a little surprised how many of the Fisheyes have popped up on these
> lists! I paid more (used) for mine than any other 3 Oly lenses combined,
> but find it's view fascinating! Now I'm lusting for a wide rectilinear,
> say an 18mm .... (24 is the widest I've got now, and I suspect 20mm
> wouldn't be enough wider to satisfy me).
>
> Neal Rockwell@xxxxxxxxxxx Panama City, FL
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|