It boils down to personal preference. I REALLY like the view of a 24, and
don't much care for 28 mm lenses. Since the 21 & the 24 are fairly close, my
wide angle kit looks like this:
18/3.5
24/2.8
35/2 or 35-70/3.5~4.5 or 35-80/2.8
Choices in the 35 range depend on subject, film, and how much weight I am
willing to carry. As for the 16, it would be a fun lens to have, but I
personally would not get enough use out of it to justify the cost. I much
prefer the rectilinear lenses. (I know it's blasphemy to talk non-OM system,
but I would really love a Voigtlander 12 mm!)
Jim Couch
gries wrote:
> Alright, I'll jump in as I have both lenses. The 18 is great, but has
> very specific uses. It gets a lot of attention from me, but from what I
> understand, it is not *that* much wider than the 21.
>
> In a perfect world where I was not spending all my money on shift
> lenses, my kit would be the following:
>
> 8/2.8 (over the 16/3.5 because of uniqueness)
> 21/2
> 28/2
> 50/1.4
> 90/2 macro
> 135/2.8
> 250/2 and of course the
> 350/2.8!
>
> I know it's unrealistic, but all of the lenses are unique and seem like
> logical steps in the way I photograph out side of work. For my
> side-business of Arch. photo I have:
>
> 18/3.5
> 24 shift
> 35 shift
> 50/1.4
> 85/2
> 135/3.5
> 200/4
>
> most of the work is done w/ the 24 and 35 shift and the 18/3.5, but the
> cost of all those already has me spending too much!
>
> I guess the short answer is to get the 16 over the 18 if you already
> have the 21.
>
> Hope this help a little....
>
> bob
< 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 >
|