I see you aren't taking one thing I would take, a monopod. I like to
take a Tamron 60-300 zoom hiking and a monopod makes a big difference. I
have put a simple 'tilt only' head on my Leki hiking stick. Twist and
shorten to use for walking, twist and lengthen to take pictures. The
little Bogen 3232 head weighs very little and I don't notice the weight.
Joel Wilcox wrote:
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 >
< 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 >
|