I've used my wife's 35/3.5 a few times instead of my 50/2.0 (ZD) and
it works VERY well indeed. I especially loved its capacity to go from
infinity all the way to 1:1 (2:1). The protrusion of the lens section
at extreme close distance is another nifty detail.
Ton
>If you look at its MTF curves on the Olympus web site, it looks very
>promising. It looks like the only thing it doesn't match the 50/2 with
>is its aperture. Given its light weight and relatively low cost it is
>a very very tempting option. Thanks for verifying that it is working
>well. I think there is at least one other list member who has
>mentioned it a time or two.
>
>-jeff
>
>On 5/30/07, Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I have one, Roger, and it works very well. It's very light and the
>> front element is deep-set enough not to need a hood.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On 30 May 2007, at 09:45, Roger Key wrote:
>>
>> > Does anyone have experience of the 35mm macro lens? I am intending
>> > to use it
>> > principally with the E-330. I am wondering whether I will be just
>> > about as
>> > well off with my OM 50/3.5 macro. However, I can imagine that the
>> > digital
>> > lens would make a better all-round compact standard lens, in view
>> > of the AF
>> > capabilities.
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|