The 35 f/2.8 is a very nice lens. I can't really compare it to the 28s
as I have not used them in years, but I would rank the 35/2.8 right up
there with the 24/2.8 which I really like. The 21/3.5 is a very special
lens, and I would put it ahead of the other two.
Jim Couch
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
< 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 >
|