On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:38:40 -0500, Tom Scales <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I like the 3.5-4.5 better, because it is smaller. Both are fine lenses.
Neither matches the 35-80/2.8 or even the 35-70/3.6 in quality or weight.
the 2.8 is a honking beast and too far out in the dollar reach for me. not
sure if the weight and price premium is worth going from 4 to 3.6 (since
almost all of the intended use is handheld street shooting, full on
tripod/mlu/aperture prefire use is another story) to gain sharpness or
contrast. so you'd pick the var. aperture for size/weight? looking at keh,
a bgn grade f4 is listed at $45 while a bgn grade var. aperture is $70 is
there to account for the price difference? i'd think the constant aperture
would be more expensive. comments? i know, someone is gonna tell me search
the archives, which i will shortly :)
--
/S
aim:iddibhai
icq:104079359
msidd004atstudentdotucrdotedu
< 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 >
|