On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 PCACala@xxxxxxx wrote:
|Hi Mark:
|
|> Prime lens is ALWAYS better than a lens with a doubler attached. Well,
|> assuming
|> both lenses are of good quality.
|
|My first round of lens test slides are back and I'm underwhelmed with my 100mm
|f/2.8 Zuiko. I can't imagine it being anywhere near the quality of a 200mm
|f/5 image - which I still haven't tested using the same lens test procedure.
|
|P.S. Folks who have been lauding the 35-70 f/3.6 seem to have been right on
|the money. I tested it at all apertures and at 35, 50 and 70 mm settings.
|Nice. Will have full info in the future.
To be sure, I have never used the 35-70/3.5-4.5 that many seem to be
enamored with. However, the only reason that I could tell the
difference between pics taken with the 35-70/3.6 and the 90/2 macro is
the fact that I took the pictures myself. I sold the 3.6 only because
its lack of true speed compromised its utility in situations where I
would have liked it to shine (e.g., indoor portraiture, stage/theater
photography, etc.). I have replaced it with the Vivitar Series I
35-85/2.8 VariFocal, supposedly until I can afford a Zuiko 35-80/2.8.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|