Why rule out the 24? It may have distortions that are not acceptable wide
open in terrestrial photography that won't matter in astro work. The
converse is certainly true. My next choice would be either a 21mm f/2 or
the 28mm f/2, depending on how much sky you are trying to capture.
Alternatively, you could consider the f/2.8 version of the 24mm and use a
faster film to compensate. Perhaps for this application it is a reasonable
compromise. Like any lens, it is not at its best wide open, but tests I
recall indicate it is better than its f/2 cousin wide open.
John P
______________________________________
there is no "never" - just long periods of "not yet".
there is no "always" - just long periods of "so far"
kelton <kelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<......I can't help on the OM-2 question.....>
>Oh, one other question -- I've been looking for a good Zuiko to use for
>meteor showers. ..... But my question is, what would be the ideal Zuiko for
this purpose?
>It seems it would be a balance of speed, angle of view/image size, and
>image quality. (For my taste, the 50mm lenses see too small a patch of
>sky and some of mine really stink at the corners of the frame, when you
>leave them wide open.) I have already ruled out the 24mm f/2 because of
>image quality. I'm leaning toward the 35/2 for this purpose; it seems to
>perform about as well as any, wide open, based on Gary Reese's tests, but
>I'd like to hear experiences with the 28/2, if there are any.
< 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 >
|