plp@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > That is some nasty waveform distortion. I think I will look
> > for a 24/2.8 instead. Gary's tests are vindicated once again.
> >
> > In the pass I was very concern about distortion (that is why
> > I missed the chance of buying a like new 40/2 at $80 in 1988,
> > the distrotion of this lens was reported to be 1.3%). Now I
> > know besides distortion there are much more other things too.
> > I once own the 24/2.8 but finally I keep the 24/2 , one of
> > the reason is the large aperture that allow you to make
> > accurate focus easier.
>
> C.H., now I get it. What you are really telling me to do is to
> skip the 24mm size altogether and buy a 21/2. ;-)
>
> Pete
>
Yes, 21-28-50-85 is a perfect combination, but make sure they are all
F2, may be except the 50, a 1.2 could work :-)
C.H.Ling
< 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 >
|