Ah, that is good news: What good is a 24mm lens if you can't jam it up
close to something to exaggerate perspective! :-)
Anyway, one of my big motivations of getting into the OM system
and analog printing is to get away from pixel-peeping, and to just
focus on the image and the message.
Which of you members still regularly do your own B&W prints with your
OM?
On 24 Sep 2008, at 1:45 PM, Fabio Fiorellato wrote:
>
> Some say the f/2.0 has moustache-shaped distortion, and is less
> sharp than
> the f/2.8 (nothing that a razor and a handful of shaving cream
> cannot cure,
> anyhow :) but it is definitely better in the close focusing range
> (thanks to
> the floating elements that the humble f/2.8 doesn't have).
>
> I do own the f/2.8 and it is amazingly small, sharp and corrected.
>
> Ciao!
>
> Fabio
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Dawid Loubser <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The olympus.dementia.org site is pure gold, thank you so much for the
>> reference!
>>
>> In anyway, in the opinion of you experienced OM shooters, is the 24mm
>> f/2.0 worth
>> it over the f/2.8 version? I am getting one in anyway, but I was
>> wondering if there
>> are any pertinent areas where the f/2.0 does worse than it's smaller,
>> slower sibling?
>>
>> regards,
>> Dawid
>>
>> On 24 Sep 2008, at 11:32 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As Iwert has explained, Dawid, that was a tease. Here's an image
>>> of a
>>> 24/3.5 (for sale at www.ffordes.com , and no connection, it's not
>>> mine!)
>>>
>>> <https://secure.ffordes.com/Shop/Images/used/370684.jpg>
>>>
>>> It is quite a bit bigger than the 24/2.0 and nearly 2x the weight -
>>> you can
>>> get all the detailed information from the renowned eSIF at
>>> <http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif.htm>, and parts diagrams
>>> etc are at
>>> <http://olympus.dementia.org/Hardware/olympus_hw.html>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Piers
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
>>> Behalf
>>> Of Dawid Loubser
>>> Sent: 24 September 2008 09:47
>>> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [OM] Re: Greetings from a new member
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Piers,
>>>
>>> My reason for going with the f/2.0 is that I really do quite a bit
>>> of
>>> low-light shooting. Tell me, is the f/2.0 much inferiour to, say,
>>> the 2.8 or
>>> 3.5 in terms of bright-light, stopped-down photography? I understand
>>> it has
>>> pronounced distortion, but apart form that (and bigger physical
>>> size) am I
>>> compromising on too much?
>>>
>>> I am itching for the 18mm.... very much so.... Especially since
>>> there now
>>> one for sale on this list at a reasonable price :-)
>>>
>>> And yes, I can understand the term "Zuikoholic" looking at the
>>> addiction
>>> these lenses seem to cause, but I am trying to keep things within
>>> moderation, based on the sort of photography I do. And one big
>>> reason for
>>> going this route is also the compactness, it's really not always
>>> feasible to
>>> lug the big canon kit around. I am not a "collector"
>>> but rather a "user" and I will happily try something out and then
>>> re- sell
>>> it is it doesn't suit my style... so I am hoping the Zuikoholic
>>> tendencies
>>> will be kept at bay for me.
>>>
>>> I want compact, top-quality, reliable kit for walk-around and
>>> contemplative
>>> photography, and a couple of lenses should cover that. I do see the
>>> merit
>>> of, staying say within the 24mm - 90mm range, having two sets of
>>> lenses, one
>>> low-light (and bulkier), the other ultra-small travel kit for
>>> daytime
>>> photography, with similar portability to Leica M kit, but I do
>>> prefer a SLR
>>> for the type of work I do in terms of close- up and precise
>>> composition.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Sep 2008, at 9:38 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "That should do it for now, eh?"
>>>>
>>>> Oh my, have you got something to learn Dawid!
>>>>
>>>> But it's a nice start - you will need the 18/3.5, and probably
>>>> should
>>>> have opted for a 24/3.5 instead of a 24/2. Welcome to the top of
>>>> the
>>>> long slippery slope.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Piers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
>>>> Behalf Of Dawid Loubser
>>>> Sent: 24 September 2008 07:04
>>>> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: [OM] Greetings from a new member
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --snip
>>>>
>>>> * What appears to be a mint OM-1n + 50mm f/1.8 MC
>>>> * 24mm f/2.0
>>>> * 50mm f/1.4 (SN > 1,100,000)
>>>> * 90mm f/2.0 Macro
>>>>
>>>> That should do it for now, eh?
>>>>
>>>> --snip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ==============================================
>>>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> ==============================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==============================================
>>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> ==============================================
>>>
>>>
>>> ==============================================
>>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>
>
>
> --
> The definitive answer to the meaning of life, universe and
> everything else
> is: 42.
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
