Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Recent experience in Sydney

Subject: [OM] Recent experience in Sydney
From: Ray Moth <ray_moth@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
Dear All,

I've just completed my trip to Sydney that I mentioned in a previous
post. I enjoyed the trip very much, Sydney being my old stamping
ground. I took with me the kit I proposed, namely, OM-2S with 21/3.5
SC, 28/2.8 MC, 50/3.5 MC macro and 100/2.8 SC Zuiko lenses. I decided,
after all, to take my OM-2n as backup for the 2S but didn't need it. I
also had my tiny Minox 35GT, which has a 35/2.8 fixed lens. 

The weather was mostly fine and very clear, and there were a number of
times when the harsh sunlight cast very dark shadows, for which it was
difficult to compensate. Back-lit shots were particularly problematic
and, even though I was only using colour print film, it was difficult
to get detail in the shadows without burning out the highlights. I
should not have left my T32 flash at home, because there were many
instances where I would have benefitted from using fill-in flash
(although this would have limited me to shutter speed of 1/60). 

The OM-2S performed flawlessly, as always, although the batteries
packed up suddenly (of course); however, in Sydney that wasn't a big
problem (much worse in Jakarta). I didn't need to use the OM-2n, which
is just as well because I think it needs a foam replacement job and
more than likely is about to start leaking light. 

I did use the Minox quite a bit, because it's very handy to take
anywhere and has an excellent lens. 

I didn't use the 28/2.8 at all, not through any problems with the lens
but because it didn't seem useful on the trip. 

I used the 21/3.5 around the city and made sure I used f/8 or f/11 as
much as possible but the results were sometimes disappointing. I found
the 21 to be very prone to flare and had to make a conscious effort to
keep the sun behind me. The camera's light meter was also easily fooled
by too much light from the sky when using this lens; I know there are
techniques for countering this but I didn't always remember to use
them. I've found it much easier to take lousy pictures than good
pictures with the 21/3.5.

I used the 50/3.5 macro quite a bit. I like the angle of view of a
standard lens and I was looking forward to the sharp images that the
macro can give. I haven't developed the film taken with the 50/3.5 yet
but I noticed something rather worrying, namely, that there are what
appears to be many tiny bubbles or droplets on the inside of the front
element. I don't know why I've never noticed this before. I don't think
it's fungus. Maybe it's oil that has somehow migrated from the
diaphragm blades to the front element? 

I particularly enjoyed using the 100/2.8 although, being SC, it's not
all that sharp until stopped down to f/5.6 or smaller. It's also rather
prone to flare so I had to ensure no sunlight fell on the front
element. However, this lens has a perspective that seems to suit
Sydney, especially shots taken from the ferry. 

I left my 35-70/4 Zuiko and 70-210 Viv zooms at home and I honestly
didn't miss them. 

Well, that's all. I'll have to look into the problem with my 50/3.5.
I'd be interested in comments on this problem and how I might fix it.

Regards,

=====
Ray

"The trouble with resisting temptation is
 you never know when you'll get another chance!"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 >


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