I don't now, but I did for a long time. The two 21s are perfect for what
they are intended. The 21/3.5 is little, light and takes 49mm filters. I
mean little -- as small as a 50/1.8. The performance is outstanding. The
21/2 is a little bigger, takes 55mm filters and, of course, faster. It also
takes wonderful pictures that have a special 'snap' to them.
Side by side, though, I would be hard pressed to tell which lens took which
picture. I actually go back and forth. For awhile I'll have a 21/3.5, then
a 21/2, then back to a 21/3.5, etc. Kind of depending upon what went
through my hands. Right now it is the 21/2.
Just pick the one that fits best in your kit!
Tom
> >I wouldn't rush into a 21/2. The 21/3.5 is a wonderful
> >lens and while I do own the 21/2, I am not sure it is
> >worth the extra money.
>
> Does anyone else own both the 21/2 and 21/3.5, and can
> compare their performance? According to Gary's lens
> tests, both are excellent lenses. The greater light of
> the faster lens sure would be nice, but at a cost. Just
> how much better is the 21/2 over the 21/3.5?
>
>
> Pete
>
>
< 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 >
|