[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] All f2s (was top ten)

Subject: Re: [OM] All f2s (was top ten)
From: "John Petrush" <jfp@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 16:03:24 -0400
I had to grin at myself at Doris' comment "It is too easy to become
technically obsessed."  Too true :-).  As much as we all enjoy a bargin, I
don't think any of us shy away just because something is expensive.  A candy
shop I frequented had a rather large sign over the cash register that said
"Good candy isn't cheap.  Cheap candy isn't good."  Methinks that philosophy
applies to more than candy.

As a fairly hard core speed lover, I find that speed is of very little value
to me in the shorter focal lengths - in general.  However, in the longer
telephotos, I would not be without it.  However, this is clearly
attributable to my passion for motor sport.  F/2.8 is very expensive in a
300mm lens.  If I could get f/2 I think I'd go for it.  Stop shooting
Formula One or NASCAR, the Oly 300 f/4.5 would be just fine.

The one thing I do like about the faster optics is the viewfinder is so
bright, making focus with these tired old eyes a little easier.  But the
same result can be realized with a bright focus screen.  Much less expensive
than the difference between a 35mm f/2.8 and f/2.0 for example.

I guess that one (more) reason mileage varies.........

John P

>>On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, Giles wrote:
>>> I have no problem with using expensive gear.
>>  Me neither, it's the weight and clumsy handling of the heavier
>>optics that I try to avoid unless it's a necessity. It is too
>>easy to become technically obsessed.
>>> 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.
>>  With all due respect, I do not buy this generalization. The history
>>of photography does not bear it out. The best-remembered images weren't
>>made with the most expensive equipment. When you're shooting in
>>available darkness, the weight of a 24/2.0 is easy to justify, but
>>if you're on a tripod, or in good light, it is nothing but extra
>>  "All f/2.0" may be the ticket for you, but there are many ways and paths
>>in this medium. If you are making fantastic images with what you use,
>>congratulations. But one f/ stop does not fit all, and for many of us,
>>the weight of the hardware is a considerable factor. Even Galen Rowell
>>speaks of often leaving his 400/2.8 at home, and taking the 400/5.6
>>due to weight considerations --- and he is in exceptional physical
>>shape. Whatever works...
>>                                           *= Doris Fang =*
>Not only that, Galen Rowell has gone on at length sometimes over the
>superiority of a slower lens for outdoor photography. The fewer and smaller
>lens elements actually increase the versatility of the lens because of the
>ability to shoot in any direction and worry less about flare.

< 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 >

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz