One thing to keep in mind here is that if you are not shooting with a good
quality tripod with a fitted hood and no filter, the difference in lens
quality amongst the various Zuiko primes is pretty much meaningless. There
may be times when you can get better hand held results with the faster lens
because you can use a higher shutter speed, but in most cases it is only 1
stop at best. If you are shooting a large majority of the time with a
tripod then you may want to go with whichever lens (faster or slower) has
the better optics. It is certainly not one or the other across the board in
the Zuiko line. Personally I would not buy a faster lens unless you really
need the extra stop for low light shooting. I have considered a 35 f2 for
shooting photos at trade shows as I find it a good focal length for that
use and the extra speed would be nice to have. I think for most of us the
real consideration is: do you really need the extra speed? If you do a lot
of (un)available light work then the faster lenses are a godsend, otherwise
I think you are needlessly adding bulk, weight & expense. The flip side is
that most of the 'big fast' Zuiko lenses are still very compact when
compared with even slow lenses on other systems.
To answer your (Ray's) question more directly, check out the lens tests and
you can see which lenses are optically better.
Ray Moth wrote:
> 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 >
< 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 >
|