chris_carroll

Vince--To each his own. Tiny semi-correction. While it's true you

can't see the aperture in the viewfinder of an OM, you know what

aperture you're at by touch. This results in less distraction in the

viewfinder, and is one of the beauties of the system, IMO.

Correx to above:

don't "close down until you get a handholdable speed." Rather,

adust shutter speed until it's handholdable, e.g, if your meter

demands 1/15 at f/5.6 and you're shooting with an 85mm lens,

try speeds of 1/60 and 1/125, both of which exposures are

reasonable in a typical concert setting.

If you must use a center-weighted meter, I think you'll get by far

the best results shooting Tri-X and bracketing. If your subject is

under bright lights and fills the center of the frame, the camera

reading will probably be OK. If there's lotsa black in the image,

close down until you get a handholdable speed, shoot, and then

close down another stop for good measure. It worked for me

once.

But if I were about to shoot an important concert with my OM-1n, I

would stop, and pick up my EOS 5, or if I were fixated on

shooting with Oly gear, I would borrow or steal an OM4.

Having a spot meter frees you from the need to make advance

trips to check out the lighting--it will take a lot of your time and

anyway, the lights will probably be different at the instant of the

show when the best moment happens. Second, AF, AE and

motor drive really help out, considering, respectively, performers

are in constant motion, the light is always changing, and that at

most shows, unless it's really small and informal (probably not

if the guy/gal is "legendary")or you know the band or club owner,

you only have 2 or 3 songs to shoot in close and then you get

booted.

Do a web search for Huron Camera. I recently bought

one--black, no less--for $12.50+shipping. They also have rewind

knob assemblies, battery covers, etc. (This preceding was a

public service announcement. I'm hope no one reading this is

pathetic enough to buy up the stock, hoping to make piddling $$

profiteering off the dead OM system on Ebay.)

An 8008 would be a good way to get yr friend to quit photography.

It's loud, heavy, annoying, with so-so AF and an iffy user interface

(ditto the N90 xcept AF is better). I remember thinking these

things 10-15 years ago when I was forced to use it in order to

have access to a long fast tele (I normally used at that time an

EOS 10s). An N75, or better yet, an N80 would destroy it in most

things a beginner or anyone needs: reliability, low weight, good

AF, good metering, ease of use. Even the most pretentious of

beginners don't typically need interchangeble focus screens,

fancy flash options, mf lens compatibility. He can buy another

body in a few years if he ever does need this stuff.

Olivier, what terrorists don't have some objective or other? ETA

wants a Basque state, Islamists want restoration of the entire

Islamic caliphate (probably including Spain, btw.) In the calculus

of those willing to commit mass murder for pointless nationalist

or religious goals, a bigger ambition apparently requires bigger

bombs.

That isn't pincushion distortion. You need straight lines to

discern that. Rather, it's the unavoidable affect that results from

the error of placing a subject too near the edge of the frame in a

wide-angle shot. This is often called perspective distortion, and

no lens is immune.

I'm thinking about getting one of these myself. Online photo

guy/reviewer Ken Rockwell claims this is Nikon's sharpest

wideangle.

Do-it-all one-lens (on the camera at a time) kit: 21/2, 28/2, 50/1.2,

100/2, 250/2. Along with the auto bellows and a couple macro

lenses, it fits in a (big) backpack. No problem! Your friends,

family, and strangers alike will admire your juggling act.

Or, you could also, like I did on a recent vacation to savage

lands, take only a body and a 35/2.8. It's a very small useful lens,

pretty sharp wide open. I didn't miss the extra stop of the larger,

possible inferior 35/2. On the other hand, it's bigger than an Epic

with a 35/2.8, but you want manual control.

I think the 35/2 and 24-85/3.5-4.5 make a good combination. 35

and 28-whatever doesn't give you many options at the wide end.

If you like long lenses, perhaps consider a 70-200 type lens

rather than a superwide-ratio zoom.

On the other hand, 35 and 100 are an excellent combination of

prime lenses. These are the two lengths I mostly use when I

haul out my trusty and aesthetically-pleasing (in ways a plastic

camera never can be) black Olympus OM2n.

Like the others said, you have to figure out what you want to do.

Do you want to shoot more portraits, or do you need an all-in-one

walkaround lens?

I don't own this lens, but borrowed one for a while some years

ago, using it extensively on a long vacation. Slide film projected

wall-sized reveals it to be very sharp indeed, center and edge, at

middle apertures. There is no center softness except when the

projector focus is off. Maybe it's your lens? Or the famous sensor

flatness issue? Wink wink.

The old Sigma 24/2.8, which I owned, was at least as good

optically, but doesn't work with newer cameras (the reason I

borrowed the EF 24, BTW.) The 24-85 zoom I replaced the

Sigma with is slightly less sharp, equally contrasty, and has

more barrel distortion. I think it's a hair less wide, too, like a

25mm. But I can't say it's ever ruined a picture all by itself.

I used the Sigma 24/2.8?sharp, well-built lens?for a few years

with an Eos 1 and a 10s. Then I got an Eos 5 (similar to A2E).

Supposedly the lens wouldn't work with it, and I never even tried

it out, afraid of damaging the electronics. The Sigma does work

with the original Elan, but not the Elan 2, supposedly. Dunno

about the Elan 7. Good lens if you have an older camera.

Edward H. writes: "Say that the lens of a 10cm long 24mm is

100cm from the subject. Now say that the lens of a 20cm long

24mm (24-70) and it is now 90cm from the subject. Therefore:

you see less."

I'm not an expert in optics, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt

in your assertion that moving the front element forward is

equivalent to moving the film (sensor) plane forward. (Maybe

someone more knowledgeable can weigh in.) Still, it's not very

hard to move backward 4 inches. Unless you're shooting inside

a phone booth, of course; )

Edward H wrote: "What I wonder, on the other hand, is why it's

longest at 24mm... Kinda negates the advantage of 24mm if the

lens is so long I figures..."

Don't understand why you say the physical length of the lens

"negates" the characteristics of the 24mm focal length. It doesn't

affect the angle of view, does it? Lots of medium zooms are

physically longest at the short end of the zoom.

You are a brave man if you are willing to manually focus a Rebel

with a 35-80 lens: dim, low-mag finder w/o any focusing aids

and a slow, low-contrast lens. I can't think of a more awful setup

for MF. I know. I've tried it.

I'd say go for it. You'll be blown away by the comparative ease of

manual focusing something like an AE-1 or A-1. And the FD

lenses are really cheap right now.

Looks like a good price if it's in good working order. I had one for

a few years and liked it pretty well. It's a good lens--sharp, fairly

small and solidly-built. Loud and relatively slow focus compared

to USM zooms, but at these focal lengths, AF speed was never a

problem for me. I've never heard of any outstanding issues with

the Tamron.

Thanks for the insight Ray. I'm seriously considering one of

these for a near-term purchase (along with a 10D and D70, I

might add.) I've long been a fan Oly's design aesthetic, from the

OM1 to the Stylus. Also, the E-1's build quality is certainly a step

above the Canon and 2 steps above the Nikon.

I have nagging image quality doubts, however. I also have a

nagging doubt that my nagging doubts are a result of prejudiced

reviewers and marketing.

Made any big prints yet? How is the AF speed and accuracy?

I avoid Sigmas since having to sell one because of

incompatibility with a new body. Tamron makes a very sharp

20-40mm zoom that I found to be useable wide open. It's an

f2.7-3.5, a fairly insignificant diff unless someone is fixated on

the "pro" aura of the number 2.8. The advantage of the variable

aperture is that the zoom is quite compact. It's also very strongly

built. It's expensive new, but cheap used. Tamron is also now

selling a highly rated 17-35 f2.8-4.

Still, I'd save for the 17-40 myself.

PJs I've worked with or observed as a rule use a fast/wide zoom

and an 800-200/f2.8, often mounted on seperate bodies. I've

never seen anyone use a normal 50, maybe a macro lens

occasionally. If you want to be like them, throw your 50 in the

river.

On the other hand, one sees a lot of bad photojournalism, so it

would seem using the "usual suspect" lenses isn't a magic

formula for greatness. Some of the very best photojournalists

use moderate primes for most of their work. Some others use

zooms. Whatever works for you.

Yes, buying from B&H is one of the best ways I know to uphold

decency and support the oppressed. That way, Wal-Mart's

tainted tax money is not flowing into the coffers of the corrupt

politicos who run the one-horse cow towns where Wal-Mart

tends to operate. Just try to imagine the benefits that would be

reaped if the Destroyer of American Bizness would raise the

price of its children's vitamins, tampons and motor oil by 10 or

20 percent. Oh, how those lovable workers would benefit. Fair

trade lattes and capuccinos for all! Long live the revolution.

Although it is currently fashionable to obsess about every bad

trait of Americanos these days, throughout Europe, German

tourists traditionally have been known as the most

obnoxious--loud and pushy with a boundless sense of

entitlement. Could their Leicas have something to do with it?

Personally, I am willing to pay a premium for locally-produced,

all-organic digital cameras made by craftsmen using ancient

techniques at a corner store. And if the store ain't on a corner, no

sale.

The other thing I don't like about Wal-Mart is the copious

selection of wrestling and action film DVDs. People who are

poor, ignorant, tasteless and aesthetically challenged, i.e.,

Wal-Mart shoppers, shouldn't have such easy access to

entertainment, the new opiate of the masses. It's like an outlet

valve to let off revolutionary steam. They should buy wrestling

DVDs at locally-owned wrestling DVD corner stores, or nowhere.

Furthermore, I object to the poor having such easy, low-priced

access to the latest cleaning products! Every time I see a worker,

who should be proud of his dirt and grime--so long as he stays

far away from me, with a bottle of Oxy-action detergent, I feel

great anger at the destroyer of American bizness.

Wal-Mart expoits its workers fer sher, but what really scares me

about the place is the peasants and unwashed masses I

encounter when I infrequently am forced to go there. Personally, I

prefer to pay $5 a roll for hand-pressed papyrus T.P. produced by

an anarchist co-op, making me not only richer, but morally

superior to the proles buying Charmin and drebels at the

destroyer of American bizness.

Haven't used the D60, but a sibling's 10D (I'm still waiting for

non-silver, sub-$1000 EOS DSLR), paired with a 420ex and

50/1.8 is a great setup for shooting hyperactive toddlers indoors

in so-so light. Autofocus equals my Eos 5 and Elan 2. Not quite

EOS 3 standard, however.

I still get some OOF shots. Can't avoid it with fast-moving kids.

Nice to be able to delete them, though (the digital shots, not the

kids; )Make sure it's your camera and not your landscape-honed

focusing technique before upgrading is what I would suggest.

The other thing is, a 28mm on a 10d is a normal lens, not a wide

lens. 24mm would barely be wide. Sigma makes a similar

20mm, too, that would give you a moderately-wide perspective.

Or maybe you're actually looking for a normal lens for digital and

I'm getting hung up on the use of 35mm film format terminology.

I also owned the lens and can tell you that mine was unable to

deliver acceptable sharpness at f1.8 or 2. Another Canon option,

essentially the same speed, a little longer, and with excellent

glass, is the 35/2. I had a good performance from a Sigma

24/2.8, but had to get rid of it because of incompatibility with a

new EOS body--a pitfall you need to be aware of when buying

Sigma lenses.