The only reason I say that is that the 18/3.5 is a 'variation' on the 21 --
both true wide-angles.
The 16/3.5 is a full-frame fisheye and adds something 'different' to your
kit.
Tom
> 16/3.5 before a 18/3.5?
> Does anyone have good sample photos taken with a 16/3.5?
>
> With a 18/3.5 the foreground at your feet is a very important part of the
picture.
> Squatting down seems to help make the lower foreground more interesting
...
> comments from others?
> Perhaps with the fisheye the scene must be chosen to work with the
distortion. I
> have seen only a few fisheye pictures I liked. I would really enjoy seeing
what
> regular users do with them.
>
> -jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> snip snip
> > 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.
> >
>
>
>
> < 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 >
|