Uh-oh... handled an OM-1 for the first time in over 20 years...

I'm surprised they would expose such a major work to daylight like that. They must have some serious coatings on the window!

On the more obsessive lens lust front, I now have a 24/2.8 blacknose and hood on the way. I'd have preferred a f/2.o version, but I need to allow for the cost of a body overhaul in the budget first. I've managed to get by these last 25+ years with a Nikkor 24/2.8, so I think I'll do fine.

I need to find a decent late 50/1.4, and then the experiment can begin...

Ken,

I hadn't thought of the exposure issue. Maybe that's why I don't own any $21,000,000 paintings.

My 50 f1.4 is (I believe) an early version. I've heard it referred to as a "silvernose". It seems to have some sort of coating but I won't swear that it's multi-coated. In any case, it's sharpness and contrast haven't disappointed me.

FYI....it went out this morning.

Rich

Link to article on auction of the GW portrait.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10964032/

My next decision - 85/2 or 100/2.8?

The 85 makes more sense from a street shooting perspective - shorter, speedier. I've also heard it's rendering is very Leica-ish, which is a plus in my book.

The 100 is quite a bit cheaper, and it would be very much like using my Nikkor 105/2.5 which I always found to be a little slow for available darkness shooting. I don't know much about the rendering, but suspect it's crisper and more modern than the 85.

I'm going to try 24-50-85 or 100 as a street shooting rig, although I expect I'll find myself missing a 35.

Potential bummer...

The OM-1n arrived today from KEH. Cosmetically, it's pretty decent - but it has a wrinkle in the right hand shutter curtain. I'm waiting for John's advice before I decide to keep it.

This is all before I test the meter, too.

As I said, bummer.