i am quite late in response to the posts on the weight of the f/2 vs.
f/2.8 primes. while only a few ounces seems like "just a few ounces," i
know next time i travel i will go lighter. i carried a 24/2, 35/2,
50/3.5 and 100/2.8, as well as 2 OM bodies, film, filters, etc. etc. in
a Lowe Orion fannypackphotobag. if you hop out of your car, shoot
photos for 15 minutes and hop back in, it's really not significant. but
i travelled for 3 months, shooting photos all day, every day. and by
the end of the trip, i decided in the morning which of the wider lenses
to bring: the 24 or the 35.......???.. next time i travel for an
extended period of time, i think it will be just the 24, the 50 and the
100.
i recently purchased a 21/3.5...... so now i am trying to get used to
the extra "wideness", and maybe the 21 will replace the 24...........
and the 21, 50, 100 combo are all 49mm lenses. i posted a few months
ago about having all the lenses the same filter size, and a few people
thought it was not overly important. but after shooting about 75 rolls
on my travels, lens changes, body changes, filter step up, step down,
stack, etc. etc. etc. having very simple, light, compatible gear (same
filters) REALLY becomes appealing.
i agree the quality of the f/2 primes is terrific, and they are a
pleasure to use. buy walking around with the smaller, lighter zuikos
becomes really evident after about 4 or 5 hours.
last bit: contrast my equipment (2 OM bodies, 3 - 4 lenses) to my
travel partner who had a Nikon F-2 (ever picked up an F2?), an N-90, a
24/2.8, 50/1.8 a 70-210/4 and a 35-70/2.8......
guess who was groaning at the end of the day?
______________________________________________________
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 >
|