> If you want a supwerwide Zuiko for landscape work, the 21/3.5
> zuiko would be the best choice.
It might indeed be the way to go. I'm very satisfied with the 28/3.5 (apart
from the slow speed, which becomes an issue when using the lens indoors), so
using a 21mm as a complimentary lens (and ditching the 24mm) might not be a
bad idea. For now, I'll give the 24/2.8 some more tries to see if I can get
more satisfying results with it, and if not, then I'll consider getting a
21mm.
That is what I have done: I now have a 21/3.5 complementing (note the
'e' BTW) my 28/2.8. But only to rationalise my range, since the
24/2.8 worked very well for me.
.... the various samples. One thing I did notice
though is that the 28/2 seems to get extremely high grades. If this lens
really is every bit as good as the test shows, then it will make sense to
look for one of those as a superior replacement for the 28/3.5.
The 28/2 is a good lens, with good close-up capability, but it is
larger than the 28/2.8 (and I suppose the 3.5) and I am always aiming
for compactness.
Normally one would assume the F2 versions to outperform the F3.5 versions.
So, what's the list conscensus about the 28/2 vs. the 28/3.5, and about the
21/2 vs. the 21/3.5?
Cheers!
Olafo
Not necessarily because I remember reading a lens test about 15 years
ago in which the f2 lens was slated for being much softer than its
slower sister. However, I am not a good judge of lenses in general.
Chris
~~~~~ ><>
Chris Barker
mailto:cmib@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|