At 03:59 PM 4/17/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>Joel Wilcox wrote:
>
>Two photos for once, both with Tamron SP 80-200/2.8 on E-1:
>
>http://soli.inav.net/~jdub/day/day36.html
>
>Joel W.
>--
>--
>As a long time list subscriber and still a very junior photographer I'd like
>to say that the content of these pictures (a soccer picture and portrait)
>are the same content as most of my shots with my OM & film. Your offerings
>really have my attention. They are beautiful.
>
>I am very curious about the ability to manually focus the Tamron lens in
>sporting events. Each week I obtain accurately exposed and focused shots of
>my daughter's team using my OM2n and a vivitar 4.5 75-260mm (a lens I like
>so much I now own two) with a standard focusing screen.
>
>Joel - when taking soccer pictures when both zoom settings and focus change
>rapidly, can you give some indication to the differences between the E1 and
>the OM film bodies. I'm very keen on the exceptional autofocus of my is-3
>but not for sports - just a personal choice - so your use of the Tamron in
>particular for sports is of great interest.
>
>Thanks
>
>Scott
Thanks for looking at my photos and for your kind comments.
I'm very happy you picked up on the lens and body combination. The Tamron
80-200/2.8 SP is sort of the 80-200 the Olympus should have but never
made. The major difference in using it with the E-1 is that it is
something like a 160-400/2.8 in film terms. I say "something like" because
I don't quite have the sensation in using the lens on the E-1 that it is
quite that long (but I am sure that it really is, just doesn't feel that
way somehow).
The other major difference is that the viewfinder in the E-1 is not as big
as in an OM. In actual use I don't find it to be "bad" or dim or
substantially more difficult to focus in manual mode than an OM. I didn't
find the Tamron more difficult or more unpleasant to use with the E-1 than
with my OM bodies. Since Saturday was my first chance to use it for this
purpose, I was very pleasantly surprised. In fact, I was very excited
about it.
(Scott, I'm afraid that sometimes my excitement about anything related to
the E-1 might be interpreted as encouragement to others to "go
digital." This is a decision that each person must make in consultation
with his or her CFO, doctor, religious authority, and body piercing
specialist. I foreswear E-1 evangelism. I will not be responsible for
orgasms other than my own. But I am at least very pleased that several of
my favorite film lenses work much better than I had ever realized they
would on the E-1 via OM adapter.)
I can't say that I really feel that there was any difference in focusing on
the E-1 as compared with the Tamron on an OM body. The lens has a lovely
way of "popping" into focus, plus the one-touch zoom allows you to zoom in
or out while keeping critical focus. I believe I shot everything at F5.6,
which means that under the circumstances I was focusing stopped down that
far and I was comfortable that I had plenty of light to focus with.
So the Tamron just seems to be about perfect for my son's soccer
games. Can't wait until next weekend to do it all again. Please let me
know if I haven't answered your questions completely.
Thanks again,
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|