on 12/12/01 5:51 AM, Roger Wesson at roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Also,is it true that the zooms that have variable aperture should be avoided
>> totally?
>>
>
> No doubt more informed voices will speak, but I wouldn't say so. Fixed
> aperture may well be better quality ultimately, but variable aperture
> zooms are by no means disgraced in comparison.
>
> Roger
I think in some cases allowing the aperture to vary with focal length can
simplify the design with fewer elements and/or different lens
characteristics that may be more easily accurately manufactured, therefore a
lower cost variable aperture zoom can equal the performance of higher cost
fixed aperture zooms. Variable aperture zooms are typically smaller and
lighter also. So I wouldn't avoid them except to evaluate the performance of
the specific lens, not just whether it is fixed or variable zoom.
I find the 65-200/4.0 to be a nice lens, the 35-70/3.5-4.5 is much smaller
and lighter than the 35-70/3.6 and sometimes that is just what you want.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|