Moose wrote:
> I assume similar things are true of the 20/2 vs. 20/3.5. In addition,
> those who have used them have said here that the 20/3.5 is either
> already already entering diffraction limited territory wide open or
> simply an inferior design to the 20/2 - not as sharp.
>
> So this may be something you don't need unless you already have one of
> the manual lenses.
It's been interesting watching auctions -- the adapter plate has been
going for around US$60-100 recently, the older lenses for $200-300.
The new fully-auto lenses are going for $4-500 -- so the price
differential isn't insignificant. I just BIN'd 280096716249, which is
the older lens+plate -- it's not a real Fang, but I'm pretty sure I can
re-sell it for what I paid with no problems if I need better optical
performance.
Also, on an E-330, the darker "viewfinder" doesn't matter as much
because live view goes a long way to making up for it, and the lack of
automatic stopdown is not something I'd get with either lens -- on the
other hand, the physically smaller nature of the older lenses means the
ultimate cheap macro studio solution works better, because there's less
in the way to cast shadows.
-- dan
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|