I have own the 21/3.5 briefly (for two weeks and just sold), for close
distance the 21/2 perform much better than the 21/3.5 which has very
high field curvature. For distance objects and at F8, the 21/3.5
outperform the 21/2 at the edges and the 21/2 is very slightly better
at the center. But both are very fine and the different is not easy to
tell without extreme magnification. Without an extensive test but I
feel the 21/3.5 has slightly higher contrast.
C.H.Ling
plp@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >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 >
|