Joe writes:
> what advantages does the f:3.6 constant lens have that
> justifies its higher cost?
As a user of both lenses, plus having done abbreviated tests of the 3.5~4.5, I
hereby reiterate some points I've posted in the past:
f/3.6:
Pros: well controlled distortion, non-rotating filter ring, moving lens hood
which optimizes depth for any particular focal length, nested lens hood when
stored, brighter image, esp. at longer focal lengths, overall higher
resolution, metal construction, performance nearly comparable with prime
lenses.
Cons: lower contrast images, significantly heavier, more expensive,
significantly larger.
f/3.5~4.5:
Pros: very lightweight, petite, extremely high contrast images.
Cons: image distortion, polycarbonate construction, noticably lower
resolution, hard to focus indoors due to dim images at longer focal lengths,
rotating filter ring, need for older style metal 35/50mm hood - which isn't
ideal for the lens but does nest when not in use, performance obviously
inferior to prime lenses.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< 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 >
|