Hi, all.
>From: ClassicVW@xxxxxxx
>
>I agree that the 40mm FOV is an excellent 'standard' view, but I can't agree
>that distortion makes the 35mm Zuiko less of a lens.
I was just making a general point about retrofocus lenses vs. symmetrical
designs. I don't think distortion is a problem with the Zuiko 35/2, and I
don't care too much about it -- within certain limits!
What I dislike on the 35/2 is what I would call 'aberration pattern' --
IOW, the *way* it softens the image at the widest f-stop settings. All
lenses, especially the fast ones, will loose sharpness and contrast at the
wides apertures, but some lenses do it in a way I 'like' (eg. Zuiko 85/2 &
40/2) or at least 'tolerate' (eg. Zuiko 28/2 & 21/3.5), and some (eg. Zuiko
35/2, Oly XA) do that in a way a dislike.
About the XA lens, I agree completely with a review I read on the web: it's
an excellent 35/4... with an 'emergency' f/2.8 setting ;-)
>I also
>have no problem with the "flavor" of my 35/2.
I probably misused the word... I meant the above *subjective* quality
issues of any lens. As you already know, some people on this list have high
praises for the 35/2, and some dislike the performance of the 40/2 -- just
the opposite of me. YMMV.
>Maybe you got one that was
>manufactured first thing on a Monday morning...
Maybe, but I will never know -- I won't dare to buy another 35/2 for testing!
However, I know my old 35/2 is now making *great* pics, but this is more
related to the hands of the owner(s) ;-)
Enjoy,
...
Carlos J. Santisteban
<cjss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<http://cjss.galeon.com>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|