I agree: the length was the prime reason for my deciding that I would go
back to the 28/2.8 after using my 28/2 on holidays in Italy. That was also
my reason for buying a 40/2.
Chris
>The emphasis in this frequently posted subject almost always revolves around
>weight. For me, length is an equally, if not more important consideration.
>The slower primes are generally significantly shorter. Somewhere around 30%
>over the 21 to 200mm range, if I recall my own post on this a half a year ago.
>
>Gary Reese
>Las Vegas, NV
>
>< 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 >
_______________________________________
Chris Barker <>< mailto:cmib@xxxxxxxxxxx
Box 2, Officers' Mess,
RAF Brueggen, BFPO25, UK.
< 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 >
|