Dear All,
Happy New Year and I hope you all had a relaxing and refreshing
holiday. My question concerns the selection of prime lenses where Zuiko
offers more than one option at a particular focal length, which is
often the case. Examples that come to mind (after cheating by referring
to Hans's Unofficial Sales Information site), ignoring macro and shift
lenses, are:
21mm at f/2.0 or 3.5;
24mm at f/2.0 or 2.8;
28mm at f2.0, 2.8 or 3.5;
35mm at f/2.0 or 2.8;
50mm at f/1.2, 1.4 or 1.8;
100mm at f/2.0 or 2.8;
135mm at f/2.8 or 3.5;
180mm at f/2.0 or 2.8;
200mm at f/4.0 or 5.0
Now, in order to attain a wider maximum aperture (e.g 28mm at f/2.0
instead of f/2.8) and correct aberrations, the lens designer has to
work harder and the lens has to be quite a lot wider. The result is a
product that is larger, has a bigger filter thread, is a lot heavier
and costs much more. The faster lens may give an advantage of only one
f-stop and may actually have inferior performance to its slower sibling
of the same focal length (by that I mean visibly inferior, not just in
tables of lens test results). I believe this to be the case with many
manufacturers' lens ranges.
In your experience, are there many cases, in the Zuiko range, where the
slower alternative is actually a better all-round choice, considering
size, weight, cost and assuming one can live with the smaller maximum
aperture? For example, would I get better pictures if I used a 21/2.0
in place of my 21/3.5? (Answers that contain cop-out clauses like "it
depends on what you want to do with it" will not be considered :-))
Regards,
=====
Ray
"The trouble with resisting temptation is
you never know when you'll get another chance!"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
< 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 >
|