Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: 21mm F2 and 24mm f2 - worth the extra over the slower 21 and 24

Subject: [OM] Re: 21mm F2 and 24mm f2 - worth the extra over the slower 21 and 24 zuikos?
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:21:57 -0800
Thomas Clausen wrote:

>I have, and use, both, moose. The 24/2.8 is a great little gem, and it 
>goes well with the 100/2.8 or 85/2.0 in a "49mm kit".  On the other 
>hand, the 24/2 pairs well with a 55/1.2 and 135/2.8 in a more heavy 
>"55mm kit" ;) Add the appropriate longer, shorter and intermediate 
>focal-lengths with corresponding 49 and 55mm filter sizes, as is 
>appropriate for your level of zuikoholism ;)
>  
>
I just don't use filters much. So many of the things they do can be be 
duplicated more easily in my digital work flow. The big exceptions are 
the 81 series filters, where filtering out excessive UV before is messes 
up the color is still usefull and polarizers. However, many of the 
polarizer sky effects can be easily duplicated digitally both without 
the variation with angle or the loss of film speed.

You can tell I don't shoot slides and view them without digital 
intermediation, can't you? :-)

>I have no experiences with Zuiko's wider than 24mm, so I am at a loss 
>when it comes to commenting on the 21/2 vs 21/3.5.
>  
>
How can you consider yourself a true Zuikoholic without an 18.3.5? :-)

>>I do have the 28/2 and it is indeed very nice. I also have a 35/2.8, but
>>only as a sort of place holder, as I almost never use a 35mm prime,
>>that's mostly zoom country for me
>>    
>>
>To me, the problem with the 28/2 is, that it is not a 55mm filter 
>thread. Don't get me wrong, I like "small" as much as the next guy, but 
>I'd occasionally like to toss a 28mm in my 55mm kit without having to 
>carry along an extra pol-filter.
>
49-55mm step-up ring. When using it in a 55mm kit, just leave the ring 
on the lens and use a 55mm cap. Well, you would need an appropriate 55mm 
screw in hood, too.

>It seems to me that the 28/2.8 is a 
>better option: excellent optical performance and often a very 
>reasonable price. And with a 28mm, the 35mm does become (in all other 
>than the Zuikoholic sense of the word, of course) superfluous.
>
>I rarely use zooms, btw., with the 28-48mm being the notable exception 
>here ;)
>  
>
For me, there are two different ranges of shooting. When by myself, with 
photography as the agenda and plenty of time, I enjoy primes. In the 
many other situations where photography isn't the primary goal, 
especially where other person(s) are involved, I like the way zooms 
allow me to both get the shots and meet the social and time constraints.

Even on a walk by myself, and where time isn't a constraint, photography 
may not be the primary goal, but I would like to be able to shoot the 
occasional interesting subject. For that, a modest mid-range zoom keeps 
things light and simple. An OMPC and 35-70/3.5-4.5 is perfect for this, 
a small, light package with exposure smarts that let me be a bit dumber 
for the moment.

>Here with me me, the 28/2 lives happily in a small bag with the 85/2 -- 
>both kinda odd cousins in the Zuiko-family in that they're /2, but 
>49mm. Nice lenses otherwise (the 85/2 is among my favorites, and one of 
>the much overlooked gems in the Zuiko line-up, in my humble opinion).
>  
>
Yes, the 85/2 is a great lens. The funny thing about this combo is that 
they are almost exactly the same size and weight, in spite of the very 
different focal lengths.

>But I never was much of a wide-angle-person, so take the above with a 
>grain of salt.
>
I have the same problem. I'm always reaching for the macro or long lens 
to isolate that small part of the whole visual field that catches my 
attention.

Moose


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz