You are quite right, BUT, I think most folks here would use their Zuikos as
ADDITIONAL lenses for the following reasons:
1. Most of us are not working pros, hence the prospect of fooling around
with our best Zuikos on an E-1 seems like it would be a fun thing.
2. Our budgets may include the E-1 and, say, one lens. Having a 180 f2,
90mm macro, 21 f2, etc., already in hand might work quite well for certain
purposes, especially as they would be less critical efforts than for paid
publication.
3. While the hype over Zuiko Digital lenses is, from what I can see, quite
justified, that doesn't make older Zuikos slouches.
Analogy, though not entirely spot on: I paddle around in a finely made cedar
strip/canvas canoe. IMO, and for my tastes/style of paddling, it is absolutely
the best such 15-ft craft made. Do I have the most expensive, or even "best"
paddle for it? No. I have paddles with are quite sufficient and are a joy to
use. I have seen/examined at least one paddle "better" than what I currently
use. It is my hope to someday purchase one. Why don't I do it now? Well,
partly because I'm buying OM gear, classic rangefinder gear, and a few tools to
do simple repairs/adjustments. Might have to change my priorities come Spring.
JMHO
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 11/4/2003 at 9:19 AM B. D. Colen wrote:
>There is something slightly amusing - or puzzling - about all this
>excitement related to taking lenses with 20-30 year-old designs,
>attaching them to camera bodies with the newest form of capture medium
>and features, and using the lenses in a mode - stop down - which has in
>effect been obsolete for the past 40 years. How many of you would have
>even vaguely considered buying an OM of any kind had it only had
>stop-down metering?
>
>I know this is seen as a way to save money and make use of the Zuiko
>lenses, but...Frankly, an E-1 deserves the E-1 lenses, and, for that
>matter, one of the reasons for buying a digital Rebel, if one were to go
>that route, is to be able to use some of the outstanding Canon lenses.
>
>(I'm writing this keeping in mind the fact that I see more discussion of
>non-OEM lenses on this list than practically any other.)
>
>B. D.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James N. McBride
>Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 8:02 PM
>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [OM] Olympus LSD-2 light
>
>
>Some of the lights being sold by Olympus are stated to components of
>kits that were separated. That's their reason for not having boxes
>anyway. /jim
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jeff Keller
>Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 5:48 PM
>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [OM] Olympus LSD-2 light
>
>
>The stand is different from the LSD2 being sold by Olympus, but the
>light itself doesn't look like the ones I've seen that were labeled LSD.
>Maybe they were missing pieces. How can you tell from the picture that
>the light is an LSD2?
>
>-jeff
>>>>snip
>
>
>
>< 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 >
< 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 >
|