I just got back after a week of escorting a 4 year old and a 20 month old in
the White Mountains of New Hampshire. I'm still catching up on the digests -
it sure was a busy week in OlyList Land! Unfortunately the weather wasn't
very cooperative most of the week for shooting the grand landscapes, and much
of the OM usage was snapshots of the kids (not a bad thing). The kit that I
settled on was:
OM-4
OM-2S w/winder 2
24/2
28/2.8
50/1.4
65-200/4
2x-A
T32
Bounce grip 2
7 mm and 14 mm extension tubes
the usual miscellaneous cords, connectors, etc...
I found the OM-4 with the 65-200 and the 28 to prove to be a fairly flexible
and manageable kit (when I say "manageable" don't forget we were shepherding
the little ones!). Most of the time I left the 28 in my pocket, and the
weather was usually cool enough that I was wearing a jacket which had pockets
big enough for the zoom for when I mounted the wide angle. I also did a few
sojourns with the 24 instead of the 28, including a trip to the top of Cannon
Mountain (no, not Canon Mountain), where it was 37 degrees and the wind was
gusting up around 50 mph - colder than I am used to in late spring! The views
were spectacular though, despite the low level clouds.
Speaking of the 65-200, I acquired it shortly before we left on the trip.
Walking into a local camera dealer, there it was, sitting on the shelf. I had
never even seen one before. The clerk mounted it on an OM-10 for me, and I
was a little surprised at the weight at first. The only other tele zoom I
ever spent much time handling is my Vivitar 75-205/3.8-4.8, which is much
smaller and lighter than the 65-200. One thing I did like about the Zuiko was
the lack of zoom creep, which my Vivitar suffers from, and annoys me to no
end! Having almost decided to buy the 65-200, I noticed they also had a
100-200/5 S Zuiko zoom. Now I had a real dilemma. Both lenses appeared to be
in excellent shape - clear glass, crisp diaphragms, no apparent oil on the
blades, no significant dings or dents. The 65-200 obviously was much brighter
and easier to focus, but the 100-200 is wonderfully light, takes 49 mm
filters, and balanced real nicely on the OM-10. Naturally I asked the obvious
question: "How much for both of them?" Like a good Zuikoholic, after a little
haggling I left the store with a pair of Zuikos. I've had a chance to use the
65-200 now, and hope to run a few rolls with the 100-200 soon as well.
Fortunately both came with a 5 month warranty, but they seem OK.
So... now that I have a pair of Zuiko zooms, the Vivitar is a little
superfluous. It is very compact and light, takes 52 mm filters, suffers from
zoom creep, and provides good but not great images (I used it, handheld, for
the polar bear image on the unofficial gallery). First $40 takes it, shipped,
in the lower 48.
I hope you aren't all asleep yet...
Paul Schings
Coventry, RI
< 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 >
|