=================
Please, debate. Have you done the tests I have? The 35/2 is unusable at
=================
naw, I don't have time for debate.
=========
This is debatable. The contrast of the zoom is pretty comparable to
that of the 35/2, according to Gary's tests.
[extracted from your posted results of tests of 35-80:
Note: high contrast at f/8, moderately high contrast elsewise.
and from the test of 35/2:
f/4 B+ B+ A- high
f/5.6 A A- A very high
f/8 A A- A high
f/11 A A- A mod. high
f/16 A- A- A mod. high
=========
Sure looks to me that the data you posted says that
zoom cannot equal the 35/2 for contrast at f/4 or f/5.6.
===============
As for flare, the zoom
comes with a lens hood which helps (as does the 35/2). And
flare-inducing photos are easy enough to avoid.
===============
point a 35/2 zuiko and 35-80 Zuiko into the sun, such as when trying
to take an image of a sunset with the low sun in the frame. I've
never seen a zoom that can reliably produce a usable image in this situation,
including the EOS 28-70/2.8L. I haven't tried it with the 35-80 Zuiko.
Until someone makes a zoom capable of this, we'd have to assume that
primes are still better controlled for flare.
I'm not knocking the 35-80mm zuiko. from all accounts it is an
outstanding lens. But for the price, most people would get
better value from prime lenses in the same focal range. If
you are among the exception to this, well, that is fine, but
it doesn't invalidate the premise that a very expensive, f/2.8,
relatively heavy zoom that covers a narrow range of 35-80mm
is not going to give the most bang for the buck in that focal
range. For wide angle lenses, it is the performance from
f/5.6 to f/16 that is most important to be *by far*, given how
I use such lenses. If you are doing things where wide-open performance
is most important, you might feel differently.
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 >
|