"Gasp" indeed Tom! Did you sell all those 35s? I now have 2: the
beautiful 35/2 that you sold me and a cheapie (but in exc condition)
35/2.8. Trouble is, I don't use the 35/2 as much because it is for
my "proper" photos on the OM4! That's daft isn't it?
Well, Julia and I are off to the Pembrokeshire coast of Wales in a
couple of weeks' time, so there will be no excuses for not using the
lovely 35/2 again.
Chris
At 10:56 -0500 30/9/01, Tom Scales wrote:
From: "James M Costello"
Jamie,
No one understands the obsession more than me -- trust me, no one.
That said, I've actually dropped back to mostly 'slow' glass, with a few
exceptions. There are a couple major reasons I've done this. The first is
size. The slower lenses are so much smaller and lighter than the faster
lenses and the quality trade-off, while there, is small. Honestly, I'm not
sure I am a good enough photographer for the differences to ever show. The
second is, of course, price. These are 'memory guesses', but the 28/2.8 is
roughly $60 and the 28/2 is roughly $275. For $275, I can have a 24/2.8,
28/2.8 and 35/2.8. Now, do you need every one of these lenses? Many silly
people would suggest you can skip focal lengths, but the true Zuikoholic
knows that you need every single focal length (although at the moment I
don't, gasp, have a 35).
All that said, you need to go with whatever makes you happy, as this is just
one opinion and the only opinion that matters is yours!
Tom
--
<|_:-)_|>
C M I Barker
Cambridgeshire, England.
+44 (0)7092 251126
mailto:imagopus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
... a nascent photo library.
< 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 >
|