The 21/3.5 is a favorite lens of mine. I also frequently use the 24/2.8,
as you do. The 24 is a better photojournalism type of lens for me. The 21
is too wide many times for people. But given it's flexibility, I wouldn't
be without the 21 in my stable, especially for landscape, panoramic, and
ultra wide-angleish shots. You'll grow to like it if you get it. It's so
small that you won't even notice it in your bag. Sharpness and contrast
are excellent, as you'd expect. It's a bit slow for interiors though. But
you don't have to shell out the 21/2 money either. :-)
Now if you really want to go wide, try the Voigtlander 15/4.5 or
12/5.6. That 12mm lens sees your feet if you're not careful! (It's not as
bad as the Zuiko 8/2.8, but that's a special case. You almost have to step
back from the camera to avoid the 8mm getting you in the picture.) I have
the 15, but haven't bought off on another $1k toy (the 12). You really
have to be cautious with the 15; wide-angle effects creep up on you very
fast. The 21 is much more forgiving to use.
Skip
At 09:55 PM 4/23/01 -0700, you wrote:
I have both 28mm / f 2.8 and a 24mm / f2.8 Zuiko lenses. The 28/2.8 get
little if any use and might find itself on the F/S list some time soon.
The 24/2.8 is one of my most frequently used lenses ....... the others
being my 50/1.2 and 85/2.0
I came across a 21mm / f3.5 Zuiko the other day. The additional 3mm
compared to my 24/2.8 did look to be a significant increase in angle of
coverage.
Does anyone have any opinion on their usage and enjoyment of the 21/3.5
as compared to the 24/2.8 and whether the 21/3.5 might be a useful and
wise long term investment?
John Hudson
< 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 >
|