I take your point, however I always have thought about my lenses in terms
of angle of view. The difference between 35mm and 21mm is 29 deg.
Between 50mm and 85mm it is 18 deg. Would one not consider a short tele
between a 50mm and a 135mm, that is a 29 deg spread also?
I have encountered circumstances when I would have preferred a slightly
wider angle of view than the 24mm gives and where one can't just step
back. The sky is one subject that comes to mind. I might not be able to
step closer with the 21mm either but if it is in the frame you can crop it
but if it isn't you are sunk.
I think the 35-80 would provide the opportunity for more shots I otherwise
wouldn't have got than it would spoil ones I did get. You are right
though. There always seem to be compromises but those on the list who own
the 35-80 seem to convey the impression that the 35-80 is not much, if
any, of a compromise over fixed focal length zuikos within it's range.
Giles
Joseph wrote:
> an expensive source of extra weight in your bag. You really don't
> need a lens in between 21mm and 35mm. those two focal lengths are
> in a ratio of 3:5, which is ideal for consecutive focal lengths.
> they are closer in ratio than a 50mm and 85mm lens, but you wouldn't feel
> a need for some other lens between 50mm and 85mm, would you?
> the difference between 24 and 21 probably isn't enough to justify
> selling one lens and buying the other, unless you have identified
> some situation where you can't shoot the scene with 24mm.
> I think if you sell your 35/2 and buy a 35-80/2.8, you won't be
> all that happy the day you get a slide ruined by flare with the
> zoom. It just isn't possible for a zoom with so many elements
> to be as well controlled for flare.
>
< 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 >
|