Mike,
I have both lenses. Actually, my 19-35 is a Phoenix, but it is the same
lens.
The 19-35 definitely is larger, the 24 is ~1/3 the size. But, the 19-35 is
much more versatile!
Contrast of the zoom is excellent, there is both pincushion and barrel
distortion (depending on focal length used).
I think the zoom is a great travel lens, because of the focal length range.
The advantages of the zoom are realized when adding 21,24, and 35 lenses to
get equivalent focal lengths (yes, I know I left out 28).
Hood of the 19-35 rotates, bummer. So, no circular polarizer if using 2s or
4.
If I had to do it all over again, I'd still buy the 19-35, great for travel
and takes great photos except for architecture. Although, I did take photos
of our church with it and they have been published...
Brian P. Huber
> My next planned purchase was for a Zuiko 24mm f2.8, mainly
> for landscape
> photography (and who knows whast else). They appear to be 130
> to 200 UKP from
> dealers here in the UK.
>
> After reading recent comments in praise of the Vivitar Series
> 1 19-35mm
> f3.5/4.5, I've found that I can get one of these new for 125 UKP new.
>
> Hmm, bit of a quandry now. Probably won't miss the extra stop
> or so of the
> Vivitar and obviously it's much more versitile but it does
> take 77mm filters
> rather than the Zuiko's 49mm (for which I already have grads
> and polarizer).
>
> Question is, what is the image and build quality of the
> Vivitar versus the
> Zuiko? Presumeably it's not as good but is the difference significant?
=====
> Mike Blayney, Devon, UK.
< 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 >
|