Gary Reese of Las Vegas, NV <PCACala@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>This begs the question: Since Zuiko zooms are mostly 1970-80's origin,
>wouldn't they be considered sub par for pro-level work today? We have
scant
>few designs that are modern.
I can only speak to the mid-range zooms directly, specifically the older
35-70 f/3.6 compared to the 35-80 f/2.8. Both are outstanding lenses, but
the newer 35-80 wins hands down. Its a little sharper and much better in
contrast. The extra 10mm reach is nice, as is the extra half-stop in speed.
The f/2.8 is *much* easier to focus because the viewfinder is so much
brighter. However, those advantages came at a substantial premium, not the
least of which is cost; the f/2.8 is nearly quadruple the price of the
f/3.6. Its also much larger and heavier. I believe either lens can produce
professional quality images.
FWIW - my only other zoom is a T*k*n* 80-200 AT-X (APO elements). I've
compared shots taken with it vs my 135mm f/2.8 Zuiko and am hard pressed to
tell any difference at the same focal length other than a very slight shift
in color balance. The newer breed of zooms are excellent, even the third
party makers are vastly improved compared to 20 years ago.
John P
############################################################
| This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
| To receive the Digest version mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "subscribe olympus-digest" in the message body.
| To unsubscribe from the current list mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "unsubscribe olympus" in the body.
| For questions mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html
############################################################
|