In a message dated 99-01-12 09:19:28 EST, you (e3ujxj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Joe X.
Jackson)), write:
<< can anyone who's used both of these help me argue this with myself?
there's a little voice in my mind that always takes the same stance:
"faster is better", and it wants me to buy the f:3.6. however, in
the recent set of lens tests, the other lens seems to fare quite well
in comparison.
other than the additional speed (what is that, 2/3 stop or so at the
long end?), what advantages does the f:3.6 constant lens have that
justifies its higher cost? less distortion? higher resolution? contrast?
since i'm unlikely to find either of them locally, i'll probably end up
mail-ordering one from somewhere, and i'd rather not have to deal with
the hassles of returning it.
>>
I had bit of an odd experience with my 35-70/3.6 a couple of weekends ago. I
was shooting in the direction of the sun (sun not in the photo) and there were
very bright glistening leaves autumn leaves (yes, there are still autumn
leaves here in So. Calif.) and specular highlights reflecting off the water.
The interesting thing was that each highlight had some localized flare right
around it. If you looked into the shadows, there was the expected detail and
resolution to be found. This gave the whole photo a fuzzy yet sharp nostalgic
diffused look. It was very pretty so I had a 9 x 14 Supergloss made of it but
not what I had expected. Maybe I'll change UV filters to see what happens. I
don't have another 35-70 (f4 or f 3.5-4.5) to compare it with though.
Warren Kato
< 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 >
|