Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,506   Posts: 1,543,494   Online: 1051
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,050
    Images
    157
    A nice kit that would not be too expensive but produce great results fit into a compact package would be the 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, and 100mm f2.8.
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Olympia, wa.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    241
    A lot of good advice.
    (But "landscape" does not always mean "wide angle". I've shot landscapes with what ever lens focal length that gives me the angle of view that I want to show)
    That said, my grouping of 6 focal lengths; 24-35-50-85-135-200, has been my standard for a long time and the three most common are grouped much like you would find on a rangefinder setup 35-50-85.

    Because I value compact size and lighter weight the 24 is a f2.8, 35 f2.8, 50 f1.8, 135 f3.5, and the 200 is the tiny f5.

    Someday.....perhaps....I might add the 300 f4.5. If I try hard enough I can convince myself it is a "need" and not a "want".
    There is hardly any day that cannot be improved by at least one good rationalization.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,836
    Look up KEH used cameras.

    Jeff

  4. #14
    nsurit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Texas Hill Country
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,268
    Images
    17
    As long as you are building a kit, get a set of extension tubes, which can be used with all your lenses and pick up a 50mm f3.5.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    76
    Update:
    I've located a >1-million s/n 50mm f1.4 and a 100mm f2 from Canadian used camera stores. Amazing what one finds when they look.
    And snagged a 50mm f2 Macro on ebay.

    So I think I'm set, for now.

    And thank you for all your great advice.

    Vick

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,462
    You need at least one wide angle. My favorite is the 28/2.8

    Also I like the 35-70/3.5-4.5, the 75-150/4 and the 35-105. All three make me very happy.

    You don't need the high-value lenses exclusively.
    - Bill Lynch

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    272
    These sorts of questions would be much easier to answer if the inquisitor were a bit more specific. Are you asking if there are any "bad" Zuikos? That answer is easy - No. Back when photographers actually cared about image quality, photography magazines ran lens tests. Zuikos invariably tested as among the best - comparable to Zeiss and Leica glass.

    If you are asking for size recommendations, that depends on the type of shooting you do. For landscape work, any of the 28's paired with a 35-70 zoom will probably fill your needs. I just got back from a trip to Alaska where I carried the 28f2.8, 35-70f3.5-4.5 and 135f3.5. The main reason for this selection was that they all take the 49mm filters. The A200 t-con (1.5X teleconvertor made for the IS cameras in the 1990's) was also in the kit. This extended the zoom to a 35-105 with essentially no loss in aperture. It also turns the 135 into a 200, but I rarely need a lens in this range so the 135 got pretty much no use.

    The 35-70f3.6 is renowned for it's image quality and is great if you are just going to mount one lens, but it is very big (for a Zuiko) and takes a 55mm filter, which disqualifies it from my travel kit. Mr. Maitani built the 40f2 specifically to be part of his travel kit. It is a lovely little lens, but after years of trying it has never replaced 35mm as my preferred and most used focal length. It is a good fit for rangefinder shooters though, as Olympus RF's all used real "normal" lenses is the 40 - 42 mm range. If you really like wide shots the 28-48f4 is a great little lens to carry.

  8. #18
    Allan Swindles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wirral, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    250
    For the very best quality stick to fixed focal length lenses. Zuiko lenses are so light and compact anyway the only advantage in using a zoom is not having to switch lenses, but then you WILL sacrifice image quality. No one lens can perform AT IT'S BEST at ALL focal lengths. BTW, you should ALWAYS USE A TRIPOD and cable release if your paying out for these expensive lenses.
    Last edited by Allan Swindles; 06-09-2013 at 05:50 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I'm into painting with light - NOT painting by numbers!

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Tyler, Texas USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    101
    Images
    20
    +1 on the Zuiko 100mm f/2.8

    [IMG] 03060044.jpg by KentWebb, on Flickr[/IMG]

    ZZ Top. In concert at the Oil palace in Tyler, Texas on October 28, 2012.

    This was my first attempt at pushing Arista Premium 400 (Tri-X) to 1600. Developed in Arista Premium Developer at 1:9 for 12 minutes/ 22 degrees C. Olympus OM-4T, 100mm f/2.8.

  10. #20
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,979
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by BardParker View Post
    +1 on the Zuiko 100mm f/2.8

    [IMG] 03060044.jpg by KentWebb, on Flickr[/IMG]

    ZZ Top. In concert at the Oil palace in Tyler, Texas on October 28, 2012.

    This was my first attempt at pushing Arista Premium 400 (Tri-X) to 1600. Developed in Arista Premium Developer at 1:9 for 12 minutes/ 22 degrees C. Olympus OM-4T, 100mm f/2.8.
    Nice. I love ZZ Top. Seen them a few times but mostly back in the 80's and 90's.

    That shot came out pretty well, a bit contrasty but heck a' sharp!
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin