On Sat, 31 Oct 1998, Joel Wilcox wrote:
|At 03:49 PM 10/31/1998 -0500, John you wrote:
|>
|>To be sure, I have never used the 35-70/3.5-4.5 that many seem to be
|>enamored with. However, the only reason that I could tell the
|>difference between pics taken with the 35-70/3.6 and the 90/2 macro is
|>the fact that I took the pictures myself. I sold the 3.6 only because
|>its lack of true speed compromised its utility in situations where I
|>would have liked it to shine (e.g., indoor portraiture, stage/theater
|>photography, etc.). I have replaced it with the Vivitar Series I
|>35-85/2.8 VariFocal, supposedly until I can afford a Zuiko 35-80/2.8.
|>
|Hi John,
|
|How do you like the Viv 35-85 in comparison to the Zuiko 35-70/3.6?
I just answered that question (somewhat) for another poster; so I'm
going to cheat and paste & copy my reply.
The Vivitar fulfills my needs for a fast standard zoom at the moment,
although I would greatly prefer a true zoom a la Zuiko 35-80/2.8.
Another advantage of the Zuiko is the fact that it takes 62mm filters,
like the Nikon 5T and 6T dual element diopters I already own. As I
indicated before, the zoom comes into its own for low light indoor
scenes where movement is restricted (stage/theater photography) or
situations where constant lens changing may be distracting (indoor
photography, especially with a nervous, impatient model).
< 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 >
|