Well, I've done no tests, other than shooting with it, but I love the
50-250. The 5X range, coupled with the quality of the results is wonderful.
During soccer season, I shoot dozens of rolls through it and it is the only
lens in my back.
The 35-105 is clearly a better lens than the 35-70/3.5-4.5, but it is bigger
and heavier. With 3X zoom, it is also more useful. It's hard to ignore the
'smallness' factor of the 35-70, and the results, to my eye, are quite good.
Neither compares to the 35-80/2.8 though, especially when you factor in the
low-light capabilities. The challenge, of course, is cost. The 35-80 is just
way too expensive.
Tom
P.S. If you want the 50-250, consider the Tokina for a lot less. It is
reputed to be the same lens.
From: "C.H.Ling"
> For the zoom sharpness and range, I had also the same thought in the
> pass but not anymore. I found the Minolta AF24-50 I had was not as
> sharp as the AF24-85, the Zuiko 35-105 is better than the
> 35-70/3.5-4.5. I think Tom S. can tell you how great his Zuiko 50-250
> is.
>
> For wide angles, the Zuiko 21/2 has very high resolution and good
> flare resistance. I have no experience with the 21/3.5 but my friend
> found his sample was not better than his 21/2. 18/3.5 is a very sharp
> lens and has very good color saturation, light fall off is high and
> flare resistance is not very good, the Zuiko 16mm fisheye is much
> better in this department although they both cover a very wide angle.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
< 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 >
|