==========================
I take your point about not needing a large arsenal of lenses hence, my
thoughts on dropping the 35/2. If I acquire a 21 and the 35-80 and part
Which would you rather have and use, the 35/2 or the 28/2?
===========================
Well, I personally prefer a 35/2 as it is a lens I make significantly
more use of than a 28/2. In the case of Zuiko's, these two lenses
are close enough in size and weight that bulk isn't a deciding issue.
The 35/2 is much cheaper, though it is possible that the 28/2 is
even better in quality. However, comparative utility of the lenses is more
important than quality here as both are pro-level lenses.
I don't really like standard range zooms very much. with tele zooms,
the lens can be more compact and lighter than the combination of
primes it replaces, whereas with standard range zooms, the zoom
is bigger and heavier as a rule. a 28/2, 50/1.8, and 85/2 would
be cheaper, smaller, and more compact than a 35-80/2.8, and you
get faster lenses, the option of carrying a smaller subset etc.
someone posted that the 35-80/2.8 was better than the 35/2 wide
open on account of coma in the 35/2. although I think this is
debatable, the 35/2 is going to be better than the 35-80 at
most apertures on account of better contrast and flare control.
I'd hate to pay alot of money to give up performance in the f/5.6-f/16
range that I use 950r more of the time. I would have a strong
preference for a 35/2, 50/1.8, and 90/2 macro over the 35-80.
but then, YMMV.
Joseph
< 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 >
|