Okay, thanx, I guess I'll try to stick to the 49mm lenses as long as I could. I
feel that trying to maintain some kind of filter set for both 49mm and 55mm
would be distasterous for my poor wallet. :)
//Rikard
Tom Scales wrote:
> Well, others will probably answer with better 'which lens is better' from
> the technical point of view, all I can share is my opinions.
>
> The tradeoff, for me, between the faster and slower versions of most Zuikos
> is actually weight. The faster lenses are bigger and heavier than the
> slower lens. For example, the 135 2.8 is 7mm longer, but more importantly
> 70gm heavier than the 135 3.5. The 2.8 also uses 55mm filters, rather than
> the 49mm that the 50 uses. On the 28's:
>
> 28/2 250gm, 43mm long
> 28/2.8 170, 32
> 28/3.5 180, 31
>
> For that one, the 2.8 is actually just a little lighter, but not so much
> faster that I would sell one to get the other, unless you find a good deal.
>
> I find myself torn with similar questions, as I am shrinking my collection.
> Do I keep the fast one (and its associated cost) or the slow, lighter one.
> I haven't answered that one myself yet.
>
> Tom
< 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 >
|