On 4/22/2020 4:27 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
This means nothing to me. It could be called the Goober 10/5.6, for all I care.
It's what it does, not what it's called.
"Goober" might be a bridge too far, but that's pretty much how I feel
about the label "Sigma".
There's a "Stigma" to "Goober"?
<>
I admit to being somewhat perplexed when I got the 21/3.5 and then the 18/3.5
for OM. I seem to have recovered. ;-)
Thanks to Bob, I now have a 21/3.5 and it is a sweeeeeet little lens.
But, man-alive, it definitely takes a different approach to
photography than the 24/2.8. That tiny variation of 3mm makes a world
of difference.
MikeG said the same thing. I recall that experience, ever so many years ago. Perhaps regular use of a 17-35 FF lens
starting in 2007, then an 18-36 eq. in 11/12 and 14-28 eq. 12/17 to now is why I don't find any such big difference.
I've been regularly using lenses as wide or wider than the 18/3.5, let alone the 21/3.5, for 13 years.
BUT - did you look at the pictures? Those are the heart of my argument.
Seeing is Believing 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/
|