On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:15:55 +0930
Andrew L Wendelborn <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I found this list today and already there has been a flood of
> interesting messages.
>
Welcome. Glad to have you among us. Hope you will enjoy the list as
much as I do.
>
> We've had an OM2n since my wife used it for photography at college.
> But only occasional use for quite a while. With it was a 50mm f1.8
> std lens and a 75-150 Zuiko zoom.
>
> But recently we've had a resurgence of interest and acquired over
> the last few months a bellows, 35mm w/a, T32 flash and grip, lots
> of extension cords for off camera flash, and a decent tripod. And
> having fun e.g. figuring out flash lighting for macro work, autumn
> landscapes etc.
Ahh...the early stages of zuikoholism :) How long ago it is, that we
have seen those. Andrew, meet Tom S. -- the guy who will help you
develop into a terminal case like the rest of us :)
Btw., good that you're both finding the "addiction" together. That
way, you will avoid the problem of either negotiating with or
smuggeling gear by a sceptical spouse, whenever the "need" for
something new arrises :)
>
> And checking the camera shops etc each week to see what interesting
> gems might have "just come in".
>
> Well one did this morning. A very nice (9/10) 300mm f4.5 with
> tripod collar and original box.
>
Wow, nice :)
> Now the plan was to pick up some smaller fixed telephotos and a
> macro lens or two before one such as this. These come up
> infrequently locally, so don't get to actually try one very often.
...and the sound you hear in the background is the crowd of people,
lead by AG-Schnozz, who are praising the 100/2.8 :) Seriously, that's
another good value/money lens of excellent quality.
Personally, I'd also voice in on one of my favorites: the 85/2. A bit
more rare than the 100/2.8, but - to me - a nicer focal length to
work with. A matter of personal taste, I suppose...
>
> So it is a tempting opportunity. I tried it briefly at the shop -
> very nice to use and very sharp image. It strikes me as a superb
> piece.
It is. It's rare that I need something that long for what I do, but
it handles quite nicely and is good to have around for those cases
where it is truely needed.
>
> Now I know we can use this for landscape photography. I'm not
> likely to use it for action shots (well very rarely).
>
> A couple of questions. How is this lens regarded in its category?
> If you have one, do you use it for things other than the above? I
> guess it would be good for wildlife photos assuming a good setup
> (as you can see I haven't had much experience with a lens like this
> so looking for guidance!). Do people use it for medium distance
> work very much?
Well, as I said, I have used it rarely, really. I've occationally
used it for nature photography, where the "leg-zoom" was impratical
(read: would get you eaten by a big feline with pointy teeths and a
bad temper). With a *pod (in my case, most often a monopod) it's
quite nice for that.
Recently, I also tried it for photographing aircrafts, following
advice from Gary. I had some very good access to the Paris Air Show,
so I could get sufficiently close to the action for that to be
considered "medium-distance" (at least, compared to how far away
aircrafts usually are). In the viewfinder, it was definitely possible
to do some nice frame-filling shots of medium-sized aircrafts --
we'll know how the slides turned out in a little while when the mail
carrier comes back from the lab :)
> I've had interesting results using the 150 zoom for
> macro photos, but I think this one would be a bit of overkill for
> that.
>
Ohh, definitely overkill. In fact, I would not use a zoom for that
ever, if for no other reason than that zoom's in general are not very
fast (compared to primes) and are much bigger and heavier (thus
harder to keep steady).
I'd use either a prime (almost "any prime") in the normal range
on your bellow, or I would get one of the Zuiko 50mm macro's. I have
only the 50/3.5, but I am amazingly happy with it. The 50/2 is said
to be excellent as is the 90/2 -- both of which cost the same of a
small luxury car. Still, a 50/1.8 on an extension tube or a bellow is
absolutely decent.
> Comments appreciated!
>
> And the price. They want $A480 (about $US 320). I think it's
> reasonable but don't have much to go on.
>
Uhmm, I have no idea how much they are going for, but to me that
seems like a reasonable price. Despite not being a heavy user of it,
considering how much I appreciate mine when I need it, i'd say it's
fair.
I've used it with the 1.4x teleconverter, however the viewfinder gets
rather dark, making me long for a 2-series screen.
Btw., you should know about this URL:
http://www.millennics.com/olympus/tope
Again, welcome. It's a pleasure having you around :)
--
------------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://voop.free.fr/
------------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|