Yes, You saw it here from the 16-9 site:? (for FF digital)
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/best19_21.html
The 21 F2 was slightly better at near field performance with a fair amount of
sample variability according to Mike Hatem.? The 21/3.5 is smaller, cheaper
with few drawbacks.? Perhaps the price of the 21F2 has fallen with the
appearance of better performing Canyon WA zooms.? I just don't know.? I bet
Jeff does.
The 24/2.8 was in the WA world series and the 24F2 apparently did not make it.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/final/24mm_final1.html
The 24/2.8 is never left home and takes up so little space.
Mike
If I get a chance I will test this... I would want to compare both at
about f8, and also both wide open at the iso's required to get the
same shutter speed. It would be nice if the 3.5 won both rounds as it
is a fair bit smaller, lighter and cheaper!
________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
http://webmail.aol.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|