On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, om@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> The voices speak to me too.
You know, I think we should really be happy that the archieves are not
on-line. We might start getting collective spam-mails from various
therapists or something, if we continue to post things like this :)
> Most recently from the 50/2 and 16/3.5, which
> I ignored and sold them into slavery.
Tsk tsk tsk...Skip!
>
> The evil thoughts are now turning to a 35/2, 28/2.8, and 28-48/4, and
> perhaps an OM-4t Champagne. Perhaps I'll wait and see how loud they squeal
> first? Eh?
Actually, since I find myself using wide lenses more and more, I have
given thought to the 28-48 as well. Thing is, though, I have never *seen*
one.
I have the Sigma 21-35, however. It's big and heavy and stops a little too
wide: 35mm is too wide, so I carry around a 50mm as well when I use
the Sigma. I would love to get to one lens, though.
How's the performance of the 28-48 - e.g. compared to the Sigma one
(failing that, compared to, say, the 28/2.8 and the 50/1.8)?
The voices tell me, though, that since the 28-48 is a Zuiko, then I do
really-really need it....better listen to them....
--thomas
--
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|