On 12/13/2011 6:22 AM, Sawyer, Edward wrote:
> Good stuff, thanks for sharing. For an even smaller package, the 21/3.5 is
> tiny compared to the 21/2. Of course the 21/2 is better, optically...
Not everyone agrees on all points.
<http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/best19_21.html>
> There's no Nikon 20/21mm that competes, even the modern ones. The only/best
> option in the wide range that might stand a chance, from Nikon, would be
> their 14-24 zoom. But it's huge and pricey.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/21mm_7.html
W. A. Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|