Hi,
> I've heard that below about 28mm, significant distortion tends to occur
> around image edges. Is this something that is really a problem? I'd like
> to get as wide as possible, but I don't want to end up limiting
> myself because everything looks funny through the 24mm lens...
Well, just my 2 cents:
I have both the 28/3.5 and the 24/2.8 (both SC). The 28/3.5 was one of the
first lenses I had (along with the 50/1.8 at that time) and I used that a
lot. In fact, there has been a time when I kinda used it as my standard
lens. However, I was a bit dissapointed with the long exposures that were
needed indoors (churches, etc.) so I decided to buy a faster wide angle. I
chose to buy the 24/2.8 after reading many reports on how sharp and
contrasty it is.
Somehow, however, I have not yet gotten into this lens. I have used it a few
times, but sometimes I felt the angle to be a bit too wide. Also, when
taking pictures of buildings you have to be tremendously careful not to get
too much line convergence. Often, the 28mm seems to give me more pleasing
results there (if only I had that 24/3.5 shift...). Nevertheless, I have
taken some pictures with the 24/2.8 which I like, and to be honest, lately I
haven't used my 28/3.5 either.
My conclusion: try mounting both lenses on your camera first for checking
the angles, the amount of line convergence (= perspective exaggeration)
especially when you incline the lens, and decide which one gives you the
angle you need. Once you've decided on which focal length to choose, you
only have to decide on how fast you want your lens to be. I can only attest
to the above two lenses, and have to say that the 28/3.5 normally works fine
(at least for outdoors pictures, for indoors shots it can be a bit too
slow), but an F2.8 or even F2 version is probably desirable. When talking
about the 24mm, the F2.8 is often rumoured to give very good results,
whereas one hardly ever mentions the F2 version, although I would personally
guess the latter lens to be very good too.
Pricewise?
Expect to pay some:
$35-$60 for a second handed 28/3.5 (GOOD value for money!)
$75-$100 for a second handed 28/2.8
$150-$225 for a second handed 24/2.8
$???? for the F2 versions, these will be substantially more expensive, and
bigger than the other versions...
As a last thought, have you also considered the 21mm lenses? They are more
expensive, but both versions (F3.5 and F2) are supposedly very high
performers too...
Cheers!
Olafo
< 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 >
|