I have the good fortune to own the 18/3.5, 21/2 and 21/3.5. Of the three,
the 21/3.5 gets the most use, but the 21/2 is more versatile.
The 18/3.5 is wonderful, truly a marvel, but is slower and much more
difficult to shoot without noticeable distortion.
The 21/2 is a perfect compromise. It has less noticeable distortion (it
you're careful), it is amazingly sharp and it is 'oh so' fast. I have found
many situations where the shot was possible because of the speed of the
lens.
The 21/3.5 has the 'breadth' of the 21/2, but is so small and compact -- as
small as the 50/1.8. That's why it finds itself in my kit so often. I also
has the advantage of being the least expensive of the three (although not
cheap at around $300).
So, if I was buying, I'd buy the 21/3.5 first. If you find it a focal length
you love (which I do), trade up to a 21/2. Consider the 18/3.5 last, as it
is more of a specialty lens, and go for a 16/3.5 first.
Just my thoughts.
Tom
From: "Andy Gilbert"
. Can
> anyone compare the 21mm lenses, quality wise? Is the 18mm worth going
for,
> given that I like wide angles?
>
>
> Andy Gilbert
> Exeter
> Devon
> England
< 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 >
|