John P. wrote:
>David,
>
>Thank you for posting the OM article - a well enjoyed read.
Yup, David, thanks much for your efforts.
>The author commented [snip] I'm considering
>adding a 21mm to my lens range (24mm is the widest so far), and have a
>choice between the f/2.0 and f/3.5. The cost difference is nearly double.
May I suggest that, as positive as this article is on OM/Zuikos in
general, it merely reflects the author's personal opinions, probably
based on tests of no more than 1-2 units of each body/lens, if at all.
Gary R. found plenty to disagree with in that piece, and so did I
(I'm sure we're not the only dissenting voices). Based on my own tests,
I'm prepared to take on the author on his comments re: 35-105 and
28-48 zooms any day.
Wrt the 21/f2 vs 21/f3.5 dilemma, IMHO, you shouldn't base your decision
on a single opinion. In past discussions on this list, the 21/f2 Zuiko
was uniformly praised. With ever improving emulsions, ultra-fast w/a
lenses are IMHO no longer critical. Still, they're awfully nice to use.
Cheers,
/Gary Schloss.
Studio City, CA
schloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
############################################################
| This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
| To receive the Digest version send mail to: listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "subscribe olympus-digest" in the message body.
| To unsubscribe from the current list send a message to
| listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe olympus" in the body.
| For questions email: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| htttp://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html
############################################################
|