Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [OM] 24-200? or 28-300mm?

Subject: RE: [OM] 24-200? or 28-300mm?
From: Marc Lawrence <mlawrence@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:52:10 +1100
> Albert [mailto:olympus@xxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> The Tokina 24-200mm, or Tamron's new 28-300XR?  Of course 
> that'd be for the gf, I'd use the OM.

For the travel I have done most photography on (Bali),
I would chose the 24-200. However, Kuta, Bali for me is (narrow)
street and lane scenes and candids, where that 24 would be
quite useful, and the 200 more than sufficient to zoom
across to the other side of the street (FWIW, I get most use
out of my 20-35 and just take my camera out with that -
those familiar with Kuta would understand why wide can
be useful in these tiny-shop-lined, narrow bikeways/pathways),
and if you head into the hills, the rice paddies and mountain
scenes that you might want to zoom in on instead of
"wideangling" them would likely sufficiently be done with
the 200 maximum (these aren't "rules" - just my Bali
experience where I could rarely see needing that 300. Someone
else might have a whole different approach and interest).

Oh, and as a contradiction to this, the wider angles can
be more difficult for p&s'ers to use most effectively, as
you often need to get in much closer than you're use to.
I've jammed the 20-35 pretty close to the face of friends,
and they've sworn that the photo wouldn't turn out because
it was too close. It has, of course (well, sometimes -
sometimes when I'm shooting quick I just take a punt on
focus and I get somewhat random results then :-) )

As Richard says, there's quite a few variables. Remembering
the "camera-shake" problem with long lenses, you might want
to reduce the chance of that my limiting the lens length.
If you're going somewhere super-sunny (like Kuta,Bali :-) )
then this is possibly not a big problem.

I used my dad's Pentax MZ5n with his Sigma 28-200 once (testing
it after repair). Having friends up from Melbourne, and visiting
the usual Sydney sights, the photos turned out quite good, and
even an 8x12" blow-up was quite satisfactory for the type of
photo taken. I'd honestly not dismiss adding one of these
"superzooms" to my Canon stable for the next Bali holiday,
particularly that 24-200. Although the optical quality might
not be the best, there is a reduction in the importance of that
for me in the resultant candid photos of friends having fun in
Kuta, and that one-camera-one-lens while spending the day out
shopping is a huuuge convenience (perhaps a more likely candidate
would be an optically better 24-105, which I think might be
sufficient in length ). Of course, if taking pictures of temples
and landscape-type stuff where I might want maximum sharpness,
I might not be so enamoured of the  "superzoom" lens (but I'd
still take my other lenses and cameras over to Bali, so I'd
use that if knowing the (photo-) plans for that day).

Does that (not) answer your question? ;-)

Okay, simple answer/opinion - 24-200 based on what you've told
us so far here and elsewhere in relation to your gf's usage and
the availability of your better optics.

Cheers
Marc
Sydney, Oz

< 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