Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Examples of the slower lens being the better choice?

Subject: Re: [OM] Examples of the slower lens being the better choice?
From: "Giles" <cnocbui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 10:37:07 +0000
Well if you compare test results such as those conducted by Gary Reese and 
some of the Photo Mags then it is clear that in almost every instance the 
fast lens will be superior to the slower one.

I am not very fussed with having the smallest lightest possible lens so my 
personal approach has been to acquire the fastest lens in each focal 
length I am  interested in so as to save money, time and opportunities..

I only want one lens of each focal length I have, so by getting the faster 
one I do not need the slower one so I save on the cost of a lens which 
can go towards paying for another fast one ;-)

It saves time.   If I bought the slower lens to start with I know there 
is a good chance that in the future I would likely want and acquire the 
faster one.  This would probably necessitate selling the existing one then 
hunting for the faster one, all of which would take time and effort.

I save on opportunities as well.  If I have the faster lens there are 
simply more circumstances or opportunities for using it where the 
conditions are marginal.  I recently took some photos of my sons school 
christmas concert.  I mostly used my 180/2 and bounce flashed with a T32.  
However, there were some shots, such as when the children were gathered 
around lit candles, when I thought it better to opt for available light 
and turned the flash off.  I was using Fuji 800 film and those 
available light shots were at 1/60th at f2.  If I had been limited to f2.8 
the shutter speed would have been 1/30 and I think the movement of some of 
the participants would have spoiled the shots.

Since life seems to lack the rewind controls of a VCR and most shots are 
once-off, my personal preference is to try and do the best I can with the 
best I can get.

I think the size and weight difference is overstated considerably.  For 
the lenses Ray mentioned, the total difference in weight comes to about 
685g.  I don't think that is a lot, especially given that you probably 
wouldn't require all those focal lengths so the weight difference would 
likely be less than that.

My tripod with head weighs nearly 4kg - that worries me considerably more 
as a weight consideration than 685g.

Giles

Ray Moth wrote:

> My question concerns the selection of prime lenses, where Zuiko offers
> more than one option at a particular focal length, as is often the case.
> Some examples that come to mind (after cheating by referring to Hans's
> Unofficial Sales Information site), ignoring macro and shift lenses, are:

>  21mm at f/2.0 or 3.5;       24mm at f/2.0 or 2.8; 
>  28mm at f2.0, 2.8 or 3.5;   35mm at f/2.0 or 2.8; 
>  50mm at f/1.2, 1.4 or 1.8; 100mm at f/2.0 or 2.8; 

> In your opinion, then, what cases exist in the Zuiko range where the
> slower alternative is actually a better all-round choice for most people,
> considering size, weight, cost and assuming one can actually live with
> the smaller maximum aperture? 

< 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