I usually like to let people check the original test images themself but as
you asked I would summarize the result according to the most concerned
items:
Fall-off, as Ken mentioned, 35/2 has very bad vignetting wide open. But at
F2.8 35/2 is actually doing better than 35/2.8, this also happen at F5.6.
Resolution:
At F2.8, center - 35/2.8 is softer; edges - 35/2.8 is slightly better. Both
are very usable after proper sharpened.
At F5.6, center - 35/2 is slightly better than 35/2.8; edges - both are very
close. Their performance are excellent at this aperture.
Between the two, I prefer the 35/2 anytime and the cost is not so expensive
like the 21/2 or 24/2.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> On 2/22/2011 6:19 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>> I'm not a fan of 35mm especially the Zuiko 35/2.8, I have focus problem
>> with both 35/2 and 2.8 while the 40/2 and 24/2 seem much better, don't
>> know why.
>>
>> Anyway, here are some Zuiko test shots made today:
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/IMG_1303_3528atF28.JPG
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/IMG_1304_3528atF56.JPG
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/IMG_1305_352atF2.JPG
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/IMG_1306_352atF28.JPG
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/IMG_1307_352atF56.JPG
>>
>
> Thanks for going to the effort. As it happens, I have both those 35 mm
> lenses*, but don't feel like straining my eyes at
> details at the moment. Do you have a summary comparison review?
>
> Moose
>
> * Thanks again, Tom, if you are still around. I used it for the last TOPE.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
