Hi,
I guess that Olympus tried to use 49-mm Filters wherever possible. However
I don`t know why it was possible at the 2/28 while not with the 2/35.
Sure The reason is that the 2/35 has a large front element. - But Why ?? -
Maybe
because the 2/28 contians 2 elements insted of 1 large in the 2/35 for the same
Job?
But this large front-Element makes the 2/35 my favorite choice when I`d have to
select a
lens to send a OM-Camera to a best looking contest :-).
Altough the 2/28 performs very good in all test I know -execpt to photodo`s
test- and the
2/35 seem`s to be a tad less sharp this doesn`t mean that less glas is better.
The 2/28 contians
more optical elements and some of them are floating. This indicates a much
higher amount
of optical effort to correct aberrations, which correspondent to the
significant higher price of the
fast 28-Zuik.
About the test comparisons: I was conviced that the 2/28 is more ecellent lens
than the 2/35
in rescpect to performance and the wider angel of field, especially compared to
their opponents
from other manufacturers. But some day I was offered a very nice 3/35 to buy.
I looked at all MTF-curfes again argued 2 days with myshelf and then concluded:
Sure the 2/28 might be more brilliant wide open (but insignificant) while the
2/35 seems to show better resolution when stopped down (although
insignificant), and while the 2/28 is better in the center (but insignificant)
the 2/35 rather improves over the field, except of the corner (alttough
insignificant),....
After all I decided to buy the 2/35 out of the simple reason that it fits my
line, while a 2/28 wont. :-(......
So that´s what testing is for...
And I feel quite happy with them. And last vaccation I could shoot some nice
shot`s which, required
the fast speed. So I like my 2/35 even more.
Frieder Faig
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:19:36PM -0700, lgriffin@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> Giles,
> To add to the mystery, look at Gary R.s Lens tests. I think that
> you'll find that 28/2
> has better results than the 24/2 and I believe the 35/2. Does this mean less
> glass is better. ;-)
>
> Hoping I don't have to call a surgteon,
> Larry
>
> Giles wrote:
>
> > This is a true Oly mystery and I am surprised it hasn't been commented on
> > before.
> >
> > The 35/2, which is not as wide as the 28/2, has a 55mm thread. The 24/2
> > has a 55mm thread. The 28/2 is between the two in focal length yet has a
> > 49mm thread.
> >
> > You would think it should have a 55mm thread also, so why doesn't it?
> >
> > Giles
> >
> > Barry B. Bean wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 20:05:21 -0500, Chip Stratton wrote:
> > >
> > > >This surprises me a little, because I have been shooting a 28/2.0 with
> > > >the
> > > >28/3.5 shade on top of a filter on occasion, yet have not noticed
> > > >vignetting
> > > >in even this case - not to say there isn't some.
> > >
> > > I thought the 2.0 had a 55mm filter ring!
> > > -
> > > B.B. Bean - Have horn, will travel
> > > bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Peach Orchard, MO
> > > http://www.beancotton.com/bbbean.shtml
> > >
> >
> > < 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 >
>
> --
> Regards,
> Larry
>
>
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|