Hi Tom,
Thanks for you comment on that. As for the 3.5-4.5, our thoughts
about this lens are the same. I have not owned other lenses in this
range (apart from a 28-70 Danubia, but that does'nt count) I have
also considered a 35-80/2.8, but I have so far not succeded in
finding one and do not want to spend so much.
Your theory that the 3.5-4.5 is a "girlie" lens almost made me ROFL,
but you have a point there. Although God (or whoever is responsible
for my pool of genes) supplied me with a set of piano-player's
fingers, I sometimes mistakenly change focal length together with
the aperture.
I probably can make the shop where I saw the 3.6 borrow this lens to
me. At least they offer the full right of return for a short period.
Best regards
Bernd
Or maybe borrow a 35-80/2.8 for a while and the 3.6 will seem so
light and compact. :-)
Seriously. The 3.6 size and weight are greatly exaggerated. It is
bigger than the 3.5-4.5 but it is 150 grams lighter and 3 mm longer
than the 90/2 which some people love to carry around. It is lighter
than the 100/2, any of the long zooms or long telephotos. Many people
think that 3.6 photos have a special "look" to them which is really
nice.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
< 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 >
|