The term "usable" was specific to MY usable. I was speaking for just
myself. And then I even defined the usage. As a general purpose wide angle
lens, I'm quite enamoured with the 28/2, but I see certain characteristics
from it that will make me alter the way I shoot when it comes to a narrow
application. A particular application which I think both the 35/2 and
35/2.8 are slightly better at. Even though I do not own the 35/2, I've seen
enough pictures from them in my narrow application to know that it does
pretty well in that regard. But, I also see almost the same characteristics
(close enough) to know that the 35/2 and 35-80 are redundant. If anything,
I think the 35-80 is better.
This three lens kit that I'm trying out seems to be just about nuts on for
me.
AG
>
> So, we've moved from this strong, general statement,
>
> "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."
>
> To "I'm pretty sure that you'll see differences emerge." under one
> specific combination of focal distance and aperture.
>
>
--
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/
|