Giles Stewart wrote:
>I have no problem with using expensive gear. I don't want to get
>metaphysical but I believe I have one chance only to take the photos
>I will take and I want to use the best I can afford, irrespective of
>whether my abillities warrant its use.
>For each of the focal lengths, the fastest lens is the best in terms
>of flexibility of use and outright performance. You get what you pay
>for.
I am afraid that I would have to disagree to Giles' opinion that the fastest
lens is the best in terms of flexibility of use and outright performance.
The faster lens is generally heavier and bulkier. It would require an extra
support to take photographs that require a longer exposure. The fast lens is
suited to events happening fast.
The slow and compact lens, which is easier to support on a tripod and to carry
along on a hike, is just as good or better for certain types of photography. I
shoot a variation of landscape photography, the results of which I would enlarge
to 20"x 24" on most cases. Last fall I used my 135mm/3.5 a lot and got
satisfactory results. There were no problems enlarging to 20"x24". When I
used my 200mm/5 and a monopod (due to a broken leg on my Magic 2), the results
were not as good as previously when I had my 200mm/5 properly supported.
BTW, I believe that the Zuiko 24mm shift has a maximum aperture of 3.5 and not
2.8.
Tomoko Yamamoto
Photographer, Composer, Soprano
mailto:tomokoy@xxxxxxxxx
Home Page: http://www.charm.net/~tomokoy/
Olympus Classifieds: http://ep.com/ep/csp.html?csp=1130
< 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 >
|