I have seen similar reports, but the finer points of edge resolution etc. are
less important to me than useability in low light and the brighter
viewfinder image. There is a fundamental question of sharpness and far less
definable issue of 'feel' in an lens and the resulting image, but no Zuiko
prime has failed me in this regard - if I have been unhappy with a lens in
the past, it was because of lack of light, not lack of l/mm or something.
(With the exception of the C*n*n 24-85/3.5-4.5, whicih was basically junk).
A:
swisspace wrote:
>
>
> I thought I wanted one of these as well, until I read a few
> reviews/tests and decided that the 24/2.8 might just be that bit
> better, might save you a bit of money if you don't need that extra stop.
> I think that this is one case where the f2 version doesn't outshine the
> f2.8 too much, but I haven't used the f2 version, no doubt others will
> be along soon to confirm or disagree :-)
>
> Andrew Wiese wrote:
>>
>> Just a quick note - I know this isn't a sales board... I'm having some
>> trouble locating a 24/2 Zuiko - if anyone has one they are looking to
>> move
>> or can point me in the right direction, I'd be glad to hear it. I
>> thought I
>> had one sewn up, but the sale fell through.
>>
>> Thanks for any pointers or offers,
>>
>> A.
>>
>> andrew (at) photowiese.com
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/WTB%3A-Zuiko-24-2-tf2482105.html#a6930338
Sent from the Olympus Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|