I have no F2.8 wide angles anymore, my test done on film in the pass shown
21/3.5 perform very close to 21/2 when stopped down to F8. 21/3.5 was better
at the corner and 21/2 better at center.
For my sample of 50/1.4 (1.09M) and 24/2 silver nose, the result are very
similar at around 1:40 at F8. For distance objects, among my samples of
21/2, 24/2 and 28/2, 24/2 is the best.
http://www.accura.com.hk/24F2AF8.jpg
http://www.accura.com.hk/50F14AF8.jpg
C.H.Ling
On 25/02/2008, Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Wasn't there a suggestion that the fast OM wide angles weren't as
> good as their more modest, slower siblings on digital? (such as the
> much praised 21/3.5)
> Certainly, I've found my silver-nose 24/2 to be much softer than a
> later 50/1.4 (1.07 mill. s.n.) in a studio situation, both stopped
> down to F11 and 16, although I didn't do any rigorous testing.
>
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
