From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <000001c1992b$1d7031a0$0a01a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] WTB 21/3.5 or /2
Bob,
I have no lens tests to back it up (Gary Reese probably does), but here's my
thoughts on the 21/2 vs. 21/3.5.
Both are truly excellent.
The 21/2 is brighter, of course, and maybe a small amount sharper. It is
also, however, bigger and heavier. There is something about it I like,
though, and it ends up in my kit pretty often.
The 21/3.5 is smaller, lighter and uses 49mm filters. For a street bag, a
much better lens.
I actually use them both a lot as it is one of my favorite focal lengths -
to the point that I will probably sell the 18.
If I only owned one, it would come down to $$$$. I'd probably start with
the 21/3.5, make sure I like the focal length and then consider upgrading.
Tom
Looking for a 21mm lens to put in my street bag. I have been using the
18/3.5, but want to keep that at home to protect from damage.
Is the f2 version that much better than the 3.5? brightness in the
screen is not a problem as I have a 2 series screen, and am used to
looking through the 18/3.5. Also, if there is a beater 21/3.5 out
there, I might also be interested as appearance is the least of my
concerns, but it must perform well.
Any advice and discussion is welcome. Also, the street bag is: OM-4Ti,
35 shift, 85/2, and if I am feeling strong I throw in the 16/3.5 and
200/4.
I am also going to do some tests on the performance of the 200/4
compared to the 85/2 + 2x-A. looking through the lens there isn't much
difference, and w/ the 85+2x-A combo, the min focus is a lot closer!
Thanks in advance for all the seasoned advice!
Bob Gries
< 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 >
|