I'll throw my opinion in. Take it as the opinion of a rank amateur that
happens to own a bunch of glass.
If I only had my choice of one, I'd personally go with the 21. I find
myself using it more than the 18 or the 24. The 21 and 24 are clearly
different, but the distortion in the 21 is a lot less than I expected.
Check out www.scales.tzo.com and navigate to my San Antonio pictures. Most
are the 21/2 and some are the 24/2. Without looking at the date on the
file, I can't easily tell the difference, at least from the distortion
perspective.
Me, I'd go 21, 35-70/3.5-4.5, 75-150, 90/2. That, with a 4T, is my standard
carry kit.
Tom
P.S. I'd love a 21/3.5 just because of the size and weight difference, but
if you're looking, I'd look at both the 21/2 and the 21/3.5. The difference
in price on ebay is surprisingly small.
>
> brian AM wrote:
>
> > suggestions for helping me spend money? -- err, i mean expand my Oly
lens options ?
> > I'm shopping for a wideangle to add to my carry kit , and could use some
help deciding which one(s) y'all would deem money best spent.
> > My current "wide" is a 35/2.8 .
> >
> > i had been browsing for a 21/3.5 because i thought to myself, "what
other SLR camera system will let me have a super-wide 21mm lens using a 49mm
filter ring?! genius!" But i hear so often that 24mm seems to be the most
'usable'.
> >
> > do you think that a street & travel setup with 21mm/ 50mm /100mm is
best, or should i stick to a 24/2.8 for the wide-end?
> > would it be worth the bother (& $$) to have another lens in between ?
(eg./ 21 + 28mm ) ?
> >
> > i know these are subjective questions, but by & large we all seem to
have common goals with our Oly equip here: a lightweight , fast carrying
SLR system.
> >
> > thanks,
> > -brian m.
> > SF, CA
< 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 >
|