Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Digital, digital, digital. Bah, humbug!

Subject: [OM] Re: Digital, digital, digital. Bah, humbug!
From: Earl Dunbar <edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:09:40 -0400
Dammit Joel, the 100/2.8 is the only one of those I have.  I'll never 
own a 180/2.8 (no real need, and CDFO issues), have the 28 in both f2 
and f3.5 versions, and the 90/2 doesn't really appeal to me.  Suppose 
I'm safe for now.

Earl

Joel Wilcox wrote:

>At 07:40 PM 4/13/2005 -0400, Earl you wrote:
>  
>
>>Walt, I pretty much feel the way you do,  BUT.... even the digital talk
>>teaches me something, and a lot of talk there is stuff like "the 50/f3.5
>>kicks butt on an E-x!" that makes me feel good.  Now all I need is a
>>50/f3.5...
>>    
>>
>
>So does the 28/2, 90/2, and 180/2.8.  My 100/2.8 is good and sharp, but not 
>as neutral as the others (warms things up noticeably -- little tweak to the 
>auto WB might be all it needs, or just postprocess).  I have to leave 
>something for Ken to sort out!
>
>Higher stops are great, too (f11, f16).  I'm certain now that Olympus 
>doesn't recommend them because the camera will usually underexpose without 
>the precaution of exposure compensation.
>
>Perhaps that seems like a pain, but not to me.  I get images back with the 
>familiar "stamp" of these beloved lenses.  Pretty darn nice.
>
>I have a little trouble focusing the 28/2 and 180/2.8.  But the 90/2 just pops!
>
>Joel W.
>  
>



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

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