on 12/30/03 2:21 AM, iwert at zuiko@xxxxx wrote:
> Gord,
>
> Stopped down, no. But a 21 with f2 is just so comfortable when shooting low
> light in cathedrals, interiors, chapels ore at twilight. the difference
> between f3.5 and f2 is very big there. Plus the focussing screen becomes
> much brighter, almost like there is no light loss with a 2-series screen.
> I don't like flash photography for some reason, and it wouldn't work well
> anyway with a 21mm. So I either don't take a picture because I don't like
> the light, rather than using flash. And nowadays, flash shouts "I am taking
> pictures, look at me, come and ask what I am doing, are you a terrorist?"
> (haha, but it happened more and more the last year)
>
> Iwert.
I find the focusing much easier with my 21/2.0 than with my 21/3.5. There is
so much depth of field with a 21 that the 1-1/2 stop less with the 2.0
aperture wide open for focusing really makes a difference, even in normal
light, but especially indoors. For me this is one of the prime advantages of
the faster Zuikos. Some of the fast lenses are better optically also, due to
being more modern or advanced designs (the 21/2.0 has a floating element for
near-focus corrections). Maybe the 21/3.5 doesn't need that, due to being
slower, but I feel subjectively that my 21/2.0 is a better lens. There's
just something about the images it yields... It is much bigger physically
though, so there's tradeoffs...
Also, for flash I recommend bounced flash (if the interior is suitable) for
the 21 with the T-32. I got some good pictures of my folks house with that
combo, the 21 at f8 or so yielded the whole living room in focus...
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|