> What gives?
Cost and availability. At some point, I'm going to start streamlining
my kit a bit for the next phase of OM operation. My current outfit:
24/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.8, 200/4, 300/4.5, 35-80/2.8, and the
AT-X 100-300/4. Of all that, the lenses I'd be willing to upgrade
would be the 24/2.8, 200/4 and AT-X 100-300/4. Everything else is
dedicated, committed or gifted and are non-negotiable.
Well, almost.
The 35/2.8, along with the 100/2.8 are my all-time favorite lenses,
but I would be willing to upgrade the 35/2.8 to the 35/2. The 24/2.8
is functionally terrific, but I'd be more than happy to upgrade that
to the 24/2. I know Joel's 28/2 turns me into melted butter... The
200/4 and AT-X 100-300/4 are great lenses, but I'm thinking about
getting a Tamron SP 80-200/2.8 to replace both.
So, would I like a wide-angle F2 lens? Yup, absolutely. For years I
was bigoted against it, though, because of cost and weight. But now
I'm trying to define the kit to my evolving way of working, I'd like
to explore those options a bit.
Right now, it's a no go. We're doing the single-income routine in a
dual-income expenditure household so until I can eat something other
than ramen noodles for lunch, I'll stick with what I have. Besides, in
all honesty, I am perfectly content with what I have--it's just a
matter of thinking about fine-tuning.
Personally, I'd rather spend money on OM lenses than on new digital cameras.
Alas, I do dream about a 250/2 or 350/2.8...
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|