Dawid wrote:
> Just two? That's a bit restrictive, but if that is your constraint, then
> the 35-80 (duh), and either a wide (24) or a telephoto (200/4 or even
> longer, I don't know your style).
Well, Dawid, it was YOUR suggestion of only two lenses. ;)
It's interesting that we now have two suggestions for the 35-80. I was
actually thinking about leaving that behind. I could just borrow Joel's. :)
> * Will be tripod-bound mostly, or lots of hand-held?
> * Deep DOF or shallow DOF? (for me, always shallow...)
Mostly tripod-based. When Joel and I shoot together, we're pretty much
glued to our tripods. Well, I do tend to use the monopod a lot, but that's
with digital. With film, I'll be using the tripod more often.
> If this were me (I never owned the 35-80) I would have done:
> * 24/2.8
> * 50/1.4
> * 100/2
> * 300/4.5
> * Ilford Pan F at ISO32
> * Tripod
Hmm. That's remarkably close to what I was thinking too. The 24/2.8 is a
must-have lens. I've got specific compositions that require that lens. The
50/1.4, which is usually my leave-behind lens (50mm not being overly
exciting to me) will likely see a lot of use because of how it works for
color photography. The 100/2 is a given. Absolutely no way that that lens
is being left behind. The 300/4.5 is the challenge lens. I'm inclined to
leave the 200/4 behind, but will be bringing the AT-X 100-300. By bringing
the AT-X, the 300/4.5 becomes a duplicate. However, there are few, if any,
lenses that render a scene like the 300/4.5. It's in a class all it's own.
The 35-80 is the question mark. I'm running into two problems with it.
First of all, the filter-ring size is not compatible with my B&W filters.
Secondly, in my experience, the 35-80 seems to render for color images a
little better than B&W images. Not necessarily in portraiture, but in
landscape-style photography. Thirdly, (I can't count), it is essentially a
duplication of focal lengths. It's also heavy.
> Use the tripod, forget the spontaneous shots - you've got a cellphone
> cam for those (and they suck in anyway). Print the crap out of the Pan F
> negs when you come back. Can you see the creamy tones already? The
> sparkling highlights? The smooth mid-tones? The endless dynamic range?
>
> Ahhh.... Pan F... There is no substitute.
Yes, Pan F is wonderful stuff. But I really prefer it in medium-format than
in 35mm. I was thinking about picking up a few rolls of Efke 25... In all
honesty, though, I'm going to compromise in a huge way. Don't gag, but my
film of choice for this trip is Plus-X to be processed in DD-X. Kodak Ektar
100 or Provia 160 will take care of the low-speed color and I've got a few
rolls of NPZ left for the grainy-color stuff.
If I did bring JUST two lenses and one body, it would be the OM-3Ti with
24/2.8 and 100/2. But that won't be necessary because I have a wheeled
camera bag that has the "Jeep" brand name on it.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|