I had the same question when I was buying Zuiko OM lenses. I was
impressed by Galen Rowell who opted for the 24.2.8 Nikon because fast
wide angle lenses have more elements and tend more to flare and
ghosting when shooting outside. That and the price convinced me to get
the slower versions of the 21 and the 24. I kind of wish I had gotten
the 21/2 because of its reputed ease of focus and of course its ability
to be used hand held in lower light. But it was very expensive at the
time for me. I don't think you will find any significant difference in
the quality of the images.
Just an additional thought about lens spread. I almost stopped using
the 21 after I got the 24. They really are very close visually and I
found the the 24 to be a wonderful all around wide angle lens and
easier to use than the 21. The reason for 28/2 test being so good is
that it was a premiere lens by Olympus. It was about this period that
faster lenses began to be designed not just faster, but better as well.
If I had the 28 I would get the 21/2 and forget the 24 entirely.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Mar 23, 2005, at 3:51 AM, jking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> my
> question is it worth buying the 21mm and 24mm F2s? when I already have
> the
> 24mm F2.8 and 21mm f3.5.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|