The sad thing is, I think I have read that the 21/2 really doesn't
perform well on the E-1. I'm not sure why (maybe way too much of a
retrofocus design?), but that it's disappointing. Not only do I own one
and like how it performs on film, but I would prefer primes on an
E-thingy, of which there is only one ZD prime right now.
Earl
Walt Wayman wrote:
>No, I haven't tried the 21/2 on the E-1 yet. I guess it's the wrong focal
>length to entice me. The 14-54 impresses me more and more. Then there's that
>wonderful wide-angle LWMNBM, which is just -- well, it's just what it is. :-)
>
>As for the 21/2, one of my favorite recent shots with it, which I may have
>screwed up because I still hadn't figured out all this scanning and
>prettying-up digital stuff by the time I submitted it, and which nobody seemed
>to appreciate, is my TOPE 18:
>
>http://www.tope.nl/tope_show_entry.php?event=18&pic=7
>
>Now that I look at it again, I know I could do it much more better. And I
>think I may raise the price for the 21/2.
>
>Hey, Cannonites, make me an offer! :-)
>
>Walt
>
>--
>"Anything more than 500 yards from
>the car just isn't photogenic." --
>Edward Weston
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
>From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>>So, Walt, have you tried that 21/2 on your E-1 yet? I'm not too
>>enamoured with the 24/2.8 on it, but the 35/2.8 is da bomb!
>>
>>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|