My ranking from best to worst would be:
21/3.5, 24/2.8, 28/3.5, 28/2.8
No idea on the 35/2.8 as I only got less than ten shots with it under
not proper controlled and recorded condition.
C.H.Ling
plp@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> It seems to me from reading the latest series of threads
> (and in the archives) that there is a general consensus
> on the relative ranking of the cheap (2.8/3.5) wide angle
> lenses. From best to worst, they are: 24/2.8, 21/3.5,
> 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 28/3.5. I am not comparing them to their
> bigger & better (& more expensive) 2.0 brothers, but only
> to each other. Many posts spoke poorly of the 28/3.5,
> almost no one spoke of the 35/2.8 at all, the 28/2.8 seems
> to be okay if you cannot afford the 28/2, the 21/3.5 is a
> good lens (but C.H. pointed out the difference in focus
> between the edge and center), and the 24/2.8 seems to be
> universally liked. Well? Note that I excluded the Vivitar/
> Kiron lenses even though their 2.0 lenses are cheap and of
> very high quality (I wanted to keep this an Olympus post).
>
> Pete
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
>
> < 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 >
< 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 >
|