In a message dated 2000-01-27 3:43:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
cmib@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
<< >
> > 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
>>
Do you recall the name of the magazine Chris?
Alex
< 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 >
|