The thing is, there is lots of logic to Zuikoholism here. With the 3.5, I
learned that the focal length is crucial to the stuff I want to capture.
While the 3.5 was really affordable, and I 'saw' in that angle of view, and
I used that lens for a long time, I am much happier with the 28/2.
Even though I like to use available light, it's not the speed advantage of
f/2 vs. f/3.5. In my use, I just couldn't focus the 3.5 because it was so
soft. It's not the viewfinder brightness. I have never had problems
focussing the 100/2.8!! The 28/2 is just a sharper lens. The f/2 is good
enough. The 3.5 wasn't.
The 28/2 has nine elements, fer Christ's sake! I've gotta believe it's
better corrected than the 3.5. I bought the 2 because I wanted the finest
tool in that focal length (in "User condition") because I 'see' in that
angle of view. I don't have to fret anymore, wondering if I could make
better pictures if I had the better-corrected lens. The limitations of the
3.5 don't get in my way anymore.
I am not a collector. I don't lust after a circular fisheye because I
wouldn't use it. But having something great at 28mm was a HIGH priority.
Mine has been painted and had numbers engraved in it by previous owners but
it's the tool for me.
Lama
From: "Richard F. Man" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Uh, you know what a true zuikoholic would say (which I guess I'm not
one --
> yet): get BOTH and find out yourself. In fact, get several of each to get
> the best ones... :-)
< 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 >
|