So far, the 21 2.0 (MC) has been spectacular.
And the additional brightness is wonderful to work with.
Bob
"Gordon J. Ross" <gordross@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx
03/24/2004 02:46 AM
Please respond to olympus
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
cc:
Subject: [OM] Re: The Harrison Ross Poll
Hi Bob:
I am refraining from comment until most of the polls are in. But I also
have
a great affinity for the 21/3.5 (other brand users have no idea) as such,
after reading mir and listening to users, I am buying a 21/2.0, do you
have
any observations so far? (I can still back out) For that matter, any
listers with comments on the 21/3.5 vs the 21/2.0 kindly offer them.
Gord
PS Glad too see that the 100 made the short list.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Bob_Benson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> OK ...
>
> 21 mm 3.5. For years, by far the best landscapes. Color and
contrast.
> Now just obtained the 21mm 2.0 ... I'll be interested in whether I
think
> it's better.
>
> 100 mm 2.8. My go-to lens for people and city scenes. Compact. Good
> results.
>
> The third choice is hard ... too many to choose from ... I guess the
1.4
> 50 mm because of low-light capabilities. But the 28 mm 2.0 is close.
>
> Bob Benson
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|