Perhaps Andrew could explain *this* use of "organic".
Charlie
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I can't say that my 20/1.7 is sharper than my 28/2, but it sure is better
>> than my 35/2. A good lens and worth the money, despite the plasticky feel..
>
> Yeah, I have to chill on this. The list police is going to come down
> on me for inappropriate non-digital content.
>
> I did have the choice of the 35/2 and 28/2. The 35/2 is likely the
> more "usable lens" being that it's my ideal focal-length and generates
> a more organic image, but the 28/2 is the better lens in pretty much
> every measurable way. Besides, the 35/2 is too much a duplication of
> the 35-80.
> --
> Ken Norton
> ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.zone-10.com
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|