Go 21/2. Or 21/3.5, a fine lens that can't be ignored. The 40/2 is rare
and expensive and cool, but no where near worth the money. I own one, and am
glad I do, but it rarely gets put into the camera bag compared to the 21/2
or 21/3.5, a focal length I love.
If overall expense is an issue, $300 will buy a nice 21/3.5. If you
discover you like the focal length, you can always sell it and get the 21/2.
Tom
>
> Thanks all for your comments, Tom - moose and Bill,
>
> your input made me think weather it is worth investing in a lens with a
relatively small difference in focal length.
>
> I also think, if I am to buy another wide angle - its gotta be a f2 MC. Of
my lens collection (28mm 2.8, 50 MACRO 3.5, 50 1.4, 70 - 15- f4, 135 2.8,
300 4.5), the only pro lens is really the 135 2.8. A f2 would look pretty
attractive sitting amongst that somewhere.
>
> Maybe what I am looking at is a 21mm or 40mm f2. Although, my bank account
would suffer for months on end!
>
> The quest continues yet again........., diseases are infectious!
>
> Thanks to the list yet again,
>
> Damo
>
>
< 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 >
|