Well Mr. Reese I agree with you not everyone can afford nor should they
need to acquire the 2.0 lens when the 3.5 lens suites their purpose.
What I objected to in my search for opinions on this list was reading
"low quality" opinions about a lens a person never owned nor used. I
was attempting to set the record straight for those who've had an interest
in acquiring the 21mm f2.0. "Please disregard the fears of people who
never owned this lens!" I for one am very pleased with the quality of this
lens. Thats just my humble opinion :-)
I of course value list member opinions othewise I wouldn't be reading the
archives. The only reason I own the 2.0 21mm is an accident of fate. A local
camera dealer priced the lens at $300 used. I negotiated him down to $285.
You'd have bought at that price too.
>In comparing a f/2.0 to a f/3.5, one must certainly ask themselves if the
>cost/performance ratio justifies the added expense of the 2.0 I suspect it
>won't for many.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|