=======================
I think there may be differences between various samples. The 28/3.5 I use
is one of the really oldies (my father bought it in 1975) and is AFAIK SC.
======================
It would be surprising if a lens with such a modest max. aperture and
modest angle of view for a wide angle vignetted.
======================
Then last year or so I bought the much higher regarded 24/2.8 (2nd handed
and again SC AFAIK), and as to this date I'm underwhelmed by its results,
whereas almost everybody swears by this lens. A bad sample or due to poor
======================
I don't swear by this lens. contrast is too flat. I owned an SC
one, figured an MC one might fix the problem so I sold the SC one
and bought an MC one, still too flat. I sold it, and then out
of frustration with finding a replacement, bought it back from
the person I sold it to months later, but still unhappy, sold it
again.
the 24/2 is better, but I concur with Gary in the position that
it has way too much distortion for such a pricey lens, as I've posted
here before. Otherwise, it is a fine lens if you are willing to
fork out the funds for it.
If you want a supwerwide Zuiko for landscape work, the 21/3.5 zuiko would
be the best choice. the top rated 24mm lens on photodo is the
Sigma 24/2.8 that sells for $169 new. I purchased one on that basis,
and while I don't think it is in fact the best 24mm lens out there,
the Nikon 24/2.8 AIS is the best one I've used in fact,
it is a very good lens (better than the 24/2.8 Zuiko MC hands down)
and a fine value, having a much more solid build quality than the Sigma
consumer-oriented lenses. Unfortunately, Sigma discontinued the
OM mount version.
Joseph
< 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 >
|