several people had questions regarding my choice of wanting to use
just 49mm filters for my lenses. i'll explain: i carried my cameras
for nearly 3 months in a backpack while in india, and it is liberating
to have as little as possible. also, the cost between two complete sets
of 49mm and 55mm filters is expensive, if you note the cost of B&W
circular polarizers. putting 55mm filters on a 49mm lens is fine,
except it voids the use of a hood. not to mention fiddling with step
down/up/right/left rings. so having 3/4 travel lenses with the right
size filters and hoods is a very real concern for me. if you are
driving around in your car taking photos, or short disance walks, you
can step up from 49mm to 72mm if you want, no problem. but you don't
want to carry 2 sets of the same filters while travelling for long
periods of time.
also, i looked at the 28mm as a compromise, as i didn't find my self
wanting to use the 35 or the 24 in the same situation. if i had less
while travelling, it would simplify things. i have had the 24 for about
7 years, and don't use the exaggerated perspective look, but i am
starting to shift towards more normal focal lenghts in recent years.
hence the 28mm/2.8.
and the filters i carried: cokin ND grad, 81c, (great with kodachrome
200) circular polarizer and UV's. they all got used quite a bit.
oh, and someone mentioned that the 50mm isn't overly necessary, if i
remember. looking back at about 80 rolls of slides and black and white,
a large 0f my favorites are taken with the 50mm/3.5 macro. a great
focal length, and a great lens. (for me.) i'm working on posting images
to the gallery in the near future....
thanks for the replies, james.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
< 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 >
|