I carry a 3 inch stack of filters so I wouldn't want to duplicate them for
both 49mm and 55mm filter-size lens. So I have compromised on all the 49mm
filter lens from 21/3.5 to 200/5 (I guess I have all the primes except for
the 50/1.2). As far as quality, I would rely most heavily on Gary Reese's
tests as I am not that organized and methodical enough to do objective tests.
That said, I like my 24/2.8 better than my 24/2, 28/2 better than my [former]
28/2.8, 35/2 I haven't tried, 50/3.5 bec it is very sharp @ f8 and I need a
macro, 85/2 just because, 100/2.8, 135/3.5 and 200/5 over the 100/2, 135/2.8
and 200/4 as I can't tell the difference when stopped down. Like I said, I'm
not very discriminating but on the other hand I am always stopped down and on
a tripod.
In a short while I may be selling all my 55mm filter lens, with the biggest
regret being the loss of the 100/2, which is great wide open and a very good
150/2.8 with the Kiron 1.5X converter.
I think one of the greatest assets of the OM system is its compactness and
protability. I am giving up a lot of this if I go for the heavy and wide
lens. With what other system can I get 7 lens and two bodies into a fanny
pack. So to define "better" as a whole system, I like the 49mm lens better.
Warren
< 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 >
|