In a message dated 01/26/2000 10:43:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sfsttj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> The barrel
> distortion in the 24/2 seems worse than in the
> other two, but nothing like that in the 17-35/2.8 Canon L which is
> the darling of travel, wildlife, documentary and fine arts shooters.
> IOW, maybe we're protethting too much ?
Those Canon shooters are probably happy with their 17-35/2.8 L lenses simply
because they have just never used a Zuiko, and don't know how good a lens can
really be.
Gary has shot (or at least tested) almost every Zuiko. His negative comments
on the 24/2, while maybe technically accurate, just show that he's spoiled ;-)
Having said that, I love the 24/2 I bought last year (used, from a list
member). I like the brightness, and I never had anything wider than a 28
before, so it's a lot of fun. I'm just an amateur here - I want to have fun
doing this!
And Doris, now that we know you are out looking for a 21/3.5 I'm sure we are
all going to cringe when you tell us about the one you most assuredly are
going to pick up at that garage sale for $75...
Paul Schings
< 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 >
|