Not to dissuade you from your quest but may I suggest a different kit.
16/3.5 a good choice
21/3.5 vs 21/2: for whatever reason, perhaps I had a bad 21/2, but I
preferred the 3.5 version for its 49mm filters, and overall contrast
across the field.
24/2.8 v. 24/2: also I like the 2.8 version. One of my sharpest lens.
I found substantial spherical aberrations in my f2 wide open or down a
couple of stops
28/2 is the sharpest wide in my stable. I had several 2.8s and I was
never happy with them.
35/2.8 v. 35/2 I liked the 35/2 over the 2.8 but since it was the
last lens with 55m filters I let it go.
50/3.5 v. 50/1.8: although the 1.8 is acknowledged as the sharpest,
the 3.5 macro is much more versatile.
85/2 keep this for the bokeh.
100/2.8 v. 100/2: The 100/2 was probably my favorite lens but I
needed the case. The smooth rendition of the 2.8 makes up for this.
135/3.5 v. 135/2.8 This 3.5 version works nicely adapted to the
digital E series.
200/5 v. 200/4 Same here.
If you get my drift, I ended up keeping all of the 49mm filter
lens--not because they were better but fit Maitani's vision of a
smaller system. I can get almost all of the above (have to deselect a
couple of teles) plus a 4T and 3 body in an Lowe Orion. My digital OM
stuff is considerably more bulky and takes a full pack to fit it in.
E-330, L10, 8mm, 7-14, 14-54, and 50-200.
I hope this helps but know it really doesn't.
Warren
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 6:27 AM, William Sommerwerck
<grizzledgeezer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> When I started working for Bendix Field Engineering in 1974, I realized I
> couldn't schlep a Nikon on field-engineering trips. So I switched to a
> motor-drive Olympus OM-1 and a couple of lenses, gradually expanding the
> system. A body, flash, and a half-dozen lenses fit in a tiny case, which I
> still have.
>
> I was an OM'er for over 30 years, until defecting to Canon. Almost all the
> OM system has been sold, piece by piece, to pay the bills when I was out of
> work. *
>
> I'm back to work, at what appears to be a permanent (hah!) job, and am
> seriously considering putting together a "nostalgia" OM system. Whether or
> not I ever take pictures with the camera is beside the point. I want a
> memento of a 30-year marriage.
>
> I'm not going to replace every lens, but the following seem appropriate for
> the kinds of pictures I like to take. And they'll all fit in the case, with
> the body and flash, with room to spare.
>
> 16/3.5 full-frame fisheye
> 24/2
> 35/2 **
> 50/2 or 50/3.5 macro
> 85/2 or 100/2
> 200/4 (maybe)
>
> The lenses should have the original front and body caps, and cases.
>
> I've done preliminary searches at Adorama, B&H, and KEH. Not surprisingly,
> their OM lenses are generally overpriced. *** ****
>
> The following will sound rude, but... as I don't actually "need" this
> equipment, I don't want to spend a lot of money -- and, of course, the
> lenses absolutely /have/ to be in near-perfect condition. <wry grin> On the
> other hand, I could probably pay a seller more than what Adorama, B&H, or
> KEH would, so we would likely both benefit.
>
> I expect to be ready to go in two or three months. (There's a chance I might
> change my mind and spend the money on my car loan, but... who knows?) If
> anyone has one of these lenses they'd like to sell, please contact me
> directly.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> * A champagne OM-4T body remains, plus the FP-synch flash. And I still have
> all my other Olympus cameras, plus an E-500 I bought, not anticipating the
> huge rebates Canon offered at the end of 2006. Other than the fact that the
> Canon isn't as elegantly compact as the Olympus, I have no regrets.
>
> ** If you're wondering "Why no 45/2 pancake lens?", it's because I owned one
> and was disappointed. Not only is it expensive, but it doesn't serve what
> seems (to me) to be its obvious purpose -- an OM body with this lens should
> slip into the inner pocket of a suit jacket. It doesn't, oddly because the
> body itself won't fit.
>
> *** About a year ago I contacted "We buy cameras" (or whatever it's called).
> When I asked for a quote on my OM focusing screens (most of which were
> unused), I was offered 25 cents per screen! How much ruder can you get? They
> could have said "There isn't much demand for these, so we can't offer what
> you would consider a fair price", which would have been reasonable and
> respectful. You can bet I won't be /buying/ anything from these people. (The
> woman I exchanged e-mails with seemed to have the attitude that I was a jerk
> for not doing business with them.)
>
> **** One wonders what the owners of lenses that won't work on digital
> cameras are doing with their lenses (other than continuing to take pictures
> with film-based cameras, of course). The decline of interest in film-based
> photography ought to bring older lenses onto the market, while driving down
> their prices. But once the price falls to the point where a dealer offers
> less than the seller is willing to take, the seller isn't likely to give up
> the lens, and it's not available to anyone. (The pitch that "20 cents on the
> dollar is better than 0 cents on the dollar" is just an excuse for gouging
> the seller.)
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|