Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,294   Posts: 1,535,584   Online: 1094
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24
  1. #21
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by panastasia View Post
    . You can alway go more-wide later, what's wider than 24mm?
    I believe the OM Zuiko lens range included 21mm, 16mm and even an 8mm fisheye.


    <edit> Here is a page which lists the OM Zuiko lens range: http://www.datasync.com/~farrar/zuiko.html
    Last edited by Andy K; 02-09-2008 at 02:47 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Added link.


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by SAlred View Post
    I'll chime in on the 28mm f/3.5 as a fine little lens. I spent my "Grand Tour" summer (1978) roaming around Europe with an OM-1, the 28 f/3.5 and the 100 f/2.8 shooting Kodachrome 64 (!)...

    I splurged on a 28 f/2.0 Zuiko when I returned to the States, but it that was pure GAS in action. The 3.5 is a gem.

    Steve A.
    Summer 1978... I must have been 6 months old back then .

    Eventualy, I followed my gut feeling and ordered the 28 f2.8. You never know, f2.8 could make a difference between possible and imposible. And it wasn't for a lot more money, as opposed for the f2.

    Oh, by the way, what does GAS mean?

  3. #23
    Mick Fagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,829
    Images
    29
    Andy, the Zuiko wide angle lenses finished at 18mm.

    I have shot with it and it is as good as the Nikkor 18mm.

    I have also used the Zuiko 16mm fish eye and compared it to the Nikkor 15mm rectilinear. They are both extremely good, extremely pricey and extremely different.

    Mick.

  4. #24
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,221
    It's kind of hard to go wrong here. There are few awful 28s out there.

    I think the 28 was a wise choice. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see you wanting a 24 in a few months, but the 28 is so inexpensive that even if you end up with a 24, the 28 will earn its keep regardless.

    I've occasionally been tempted to get a 28/3.5 as a throw-around lens (Nikon had a pretty good one too), but so far I've resisted.
    Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.

    Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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