I think that the pricing has more to do with current demand than build
or optical quality. Like tom, I prefer the 3.5-4.5 as it is lighter and
more compact. I have used one for years as my primary lens for climbing
, backpacking, and cycle touring. I have often taken it and just one
body on trips where weight and bulk are major considerations.
Jim Couch
Siddiq wrote:
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 :)
< 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 >
|