That's a very personal question (I don't mean I won't answer it, just that
it is up to you). In my case, I love the 21 focal length. It gets much more
use than the 24. I haven't noticed a big difference in 'useability' or flare
between the two, just a wider view. I use the 21 more than the 18 too, as
the 18 is harder to manage distortion (meaning just the angle of view, not
that the lens itself distorts).
3.5 vs. 2 is tougher. I usually go slower, as they are cheaper and lighter.
My one exception is the 21/2. My first 21 was an f/2 and I guess I am just
attached to that model of lens. The images just JUMP out at you. On the
other hand, so do the 21/3.5 images.
As for the 21 vs.24, you need them both! Realistically, I rarely use the 24
though. Mine has been out on loan to various people for months and I haven't
missed it. Great lens, I just use the 21 more.
Didn't help, did I
Tom
> Hi Tom,
>
> > As for flare, I haven't found it to really be a problem with any of the
> > three. Let's face it, shoot into the sun with a super-wide and you'll
get
> > flare. Will the SC version flare more? Probably, but the differences
are
> > pretty small.
>
> Thanks for your reply!
>
> On a related note: do you guys think the difference between 21mm and 24mm
is
> big enough to desire a 21/3.5, given the fact that I already have a
24/2.8?
> This is what has been bugging me for quite some time, and this is the
major
> reason why I'd really like to get the F2 variant, as that will give me
both
> a wider angle, as well as a one stop faster lens....
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Cheers!
> Olafo
>
< 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 >
|