File :-(, x, )
Lens or upgrade? Anonymous
So i've been generally pretty happy with my Evolt E300...its been good to me, and came with a 40-150mm zoom lens to boot.

I've been getting more serious about my photography, and was thinking of purchasing a new lens for hopefully Outdoor Macro or Landscape-- i'm not much for studio work.

Can anyone suggest a decent-priced lens to look into purchasing? I'm flexible on price if its worth the money.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2004:09:27 00:28:38Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width656Image Height600
>> Anonymous
50mm 1.8 followed by a wide angle 2.4
>> Anonymous
Can you use a Canon lens with an Olympus body?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>159498
lolwut


>>159489
Olympus 11-22 is your only wide-angle option for landscapes (at least until Sigma 10-20 goes on sale). It's an excellent, but quite expensive lens.
For outdoor macro, you have a choice of Olympus 50mm, Sigma 105mm and Sigma 150mm, depending on how far do you prefer to be from your subject. I haven't used any of those, but reportedly they're all very good too.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:06:22 16:11:17
>> Anonymous
>>159499
No. Only if it's a FD-mount lens and only with some heavy surgery.
>> Anonymous
I appreciate your help, i'm headed to the electronic depo of Korea with some helpful tips =)
>> Anonymous
Don't use ultra wide angles for landscapes. It gives you cancer.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>159556
wat
>> Anonymous
>>159556
lolwut
No it doesn't.

The mentioned 11-22 is 22-44mm in 35mm film terms, which is wide, but not wide enough for everything to become zomfg stretched. To go ultrawide, OP will need to drop $1500 on the 7-14/4 or change the entire system.
>> Anonymous
22 is ultrawide.

That said, I usually haet ultrawides, but they're good on landscapes, and the 24mm focal length somehow seems to work for portraits if the lens is well-corrected and it's like a waist-up deal.
>> Anonymous
>>159556
Agreed. Unless the entire landscape is filled with awesome, you're better off isolating a smaller portion so you can have a stronger subject. Using an ultrawide without thinking it through is lazy and ends up in aimless shitty photos.

Ken Fagwell is actually pretty accurate on this subject. He uses ultrawides to achieve a strong sense of depth in a shot, not to "get it all in".
>> Anonymous
>>160425

Seconded. Too many think they need to go straight to ultrawide, which is bullshit.