I had better explain my reasons as otherwise they are likely
to be misconstrued.
I consider my 24/2 to be one of the finest lenses I have it is very sharp
and contrasty, the latter being a characteristic I value at least as much
as resolution. I use this lens far more than my 35/2. I was not
considering selling it because of Gary's findings but because of lack of
space in the beak of the Pelican. I do not do architectural photography
and I too think the waveform distortion would be undetectable in most
circumstances. I never noticed it in any of my images. A case of the
emperor's new clothes perhaps?
If distortion is that much of a worry then who wants a 35-80/f2.8 with
'pronounced barrel' at 35mm. It can't be a very good lens with such a flaw
so does anyone have one they would like to sell at a knockdown price, now
that this significant flaw has been revealed? ;-)
Which brings me to my reasons for considering selling my 35/2 and the 24/2.
They have nothing to do with any lack of performance of either lens, quite
the contrary, in fact Popular Photograph (I think) said the 35/2 had the
least flare of any lens they had tested to that date - which has made me
think twice about parting with it. I mentioned I keep my gear in a Pelican
case, well apart from it's more obvious features it also serves to limit
incipient tendencies to rampant zuikoholism. I have vowed that if it has
glass and I can't fit it in the case, I wont acquire it or else something
else will have to go.
That, not performance is the basis for my reasoning. My case is full so in
order to fit a 35-80 in, something has to go. obviously the 35-80 does 35
so the 35/2 is an obvious candidate to go. Now I have sometimes wanted
something a bit wider than the 24 so that is why I have been thinking of
replacing it with a a 21. The 28? Well that is a slightly better fit (4
deg) in terms of angle of view between 35 and 21. What I really need is an
18mm then the 24 would be a perfect fit - angle of view wise - between the
35 of the zoom and the 18.
The 35/2 would in itself not make enough room for a 35-80 so I am afraid
the 135mm f2.8 will have to go also - anyone want a nice 135mm f2.8 MC with
all caps and case?
Giles
What a wonderfull bird is the pelican
His beak can hold more than his belly can
He can hold in his beak, enough for a week
What a marvelous bird is the pelican.
Dirk and Carla Wright wrote:
> bring enough raw fish and I'm sure they'll go with you anywhere.....<g>
> So, what's wrong with the 35/2?? I thought it was an excellent lens! I'd
> love to have one someday.
>
< 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 >
|