Hey Gang and Gangettes,
I'm about to uns*bscribe for a little while to take a trip to Utah,
Arizona, and other parts not yet determined. Before leaving, I wanted to
share some results of tests made over the weekend in preparation for my
shoots in the Old West. They say there's Landscape out there. I've got a
1000 miles of driving to Arches NP to figure out what it is. I'm hoping
I'll know it when I see it.
First, my kit:
OM-2S (dedicated to Velvia)
OM-4T (Provia F)
OM-4 (Kodachrome 25)
OMPC (Royal Gold 100)
35-80/2.8
85-250/5
Tokina 17/3.5
21/3.5
24/2.8
28/2.8
50/3.5 macro
85/2
100/2.8
135/2.8
180/2.8
300/4.5
Vivitar auto extension tubes
F280
F-type .6m cord
Stroboflip VH2000
Lowepro Compact AW
Lowepro Orion butt pack
Bogen 3221 + 3030 head
Velvia is my favorite film out west, but I'll be doubling many shots with
Kodachrome wherever possible. Provia F is my favorite "do-everything" film
and the F280 may get some use.
Here are the results of my tests:
1) My 21/3.5 seems to vignette just a little in the corner even naked at f8
but is OK by f11 even with a UV filter.
2) I compared my 135/2.8 with 2X-A doubler and with Viv macro-focusing
doubler to the 85-250/5 @250mm. The 2X-A was better than the Viv in the
sense that it was contrastier, but neither was as good as the
85-250/5. Overall sharpness was quite good with both doublers, the 2X-A
being preferable, but I found both were unacceptable and I am taking neither.
My purpose in doing the test was to determine whether I would need to pack
the long zoom for hikes, or whether I could take the 100 and 135 telephotos
and a doubler to cover the ranges. I'll pack the zoom if the need arises.
3) Along the same lines I compared the 180/2.8 to the 100/2.8 with
2X-A. The difference in contrast was so profound that the 100/2.8-2X-A
combination looked like it was a +2/3 bracket. Attribute +1/3 stop to the
100/2.8 and +1/3 to the doubler. (It's OK, the 100/2.8 is great for other
things.)
4) I did not, but wish I had, compare the 135/2.8 and 180/2.8 to the
85-250/5 at the comparable focal lengths. I actually know that the 180/2.8
wins that contest, but the zoom is *very* respectable. I don't know about
the 135/2.8, but I've found it to be very good.
It seems as though it should be an easy decision either to take or leave
the 85-250/5, but it's not easy for me. It's strictly a tripod lens (for
me). I carry my tripod when I hike (most of the time), but I don't always
use it if I don't have to, which I might not with the 100 or 135. With the
zoom I have to use the tripod.
The 85-250/5 is also a terribly awkward lens to pack because it is so
long. Other than that, I like everything about it.
The 35-80/2.8 will probably end up being used for 900f all shots.
The extension tubes are coming along in the event that I can use the
180/2.8 for some macro work. Oddly, I'm leaving my 90/2 at home this
trip. I have found I never use it out west, whereas it is a constant
companion when I'm in Iowa or Hawaii. Go figure.
Sayonara for now.
Joel W.
< 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 >
|