In my experience 35/2 is the least sharp Zuiko wide among the F2 group. For
the F2 Zuiko wide, the order of resolution at infinity would be: 21/2, 24/2,
28/2 and 35/2. 21/2 and 24/2 are very close in performance.
21/2, 24/2 and 28/2 has close focus correction, they should perform better
at close distance. I think the price reflect the quality very well, 35/2 is
the cheapest F2 wide, of course it is also due to this focal length is
easier to make.
BTW, I just made some test shot with 35/2, 24/2 and 50/1.4 SC, you can see
the performance of both 24/2 and 50/1.4 are better but the 35/2 shot is
still very usable. (the focus point is at "Central Valley")
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_5479_35F2.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_5480_24F2.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_5481_5014F2.JPG
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dawid Loubser"
> Hi All,
>
> I have heard so many varied opinions on this, but have yet seen very
> few images (preferably fairly high res)
> to show the character and performance of the OM Zuiko 35mm f/2.0. I
> know many (Ag Schnozz...) prefer the f/2.8
> version, but my style of shooting is largely centered on shallow depth
> of field, yet I like the 35mm focal length.
>
> Could you guys perhaps reply with some opinions and images taken with
> the 35mm f/2.0, preferably wide open? How would
> you rate the performance compared to later 50/1.8 lenses?
>
> thanks a million,
> Dawid
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
