I did not really envision the 35-80 as being a replacement for my fixed
focal length lenses but rather as an adjunct to them - a mini system in
it's own right.
I have encountered circumstances where I have needed to switch
between primes carried in pockets, juggling lens caps, hoods etc. The
hoods in particular are not very pocket friendly. In such circumstances I
think the 35-80 would be of considerable benefit. I personally find that
hassles with equipment do not help my mental state or I suspect the
quality of the photographs that result.
The 35-80 is not light, however my nearest equivalent combo to that you
suggest (28/2 (hypothetical), 50/1.2, 90/2) would weigh 1080g. The 35-80
is 650g. A considerable weight saving, with fewer hassles, and still with
prime comparable performance. Your combination at 670g would be
comparable in weight though would not be more compact except individually.
I was not considering the 35-80 to substitute for primes entirely - my
hypothetical primes would still be 21, 28, 50... For me, this makes more
sense than 24, 35, 50... or even 21, 35. Another advantage of the
28/2 over the 35/2 is that it has close focus correction.
I have not liked zooms either, I do not use one. However, I think the
35-80 has good enough performance that one would not fear that it's use
might compromise image quality.
I would have a 28/2, 50/1.2, 90/2 macro and the 35-80. I think my milage
is actually pretty close to yours, just more expensive and versatile.
Giles
Joseph wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> I would have a strong preference for a 35/2, 50/1.8, and 90/2 macro over
> the 35-80. but then, YMMV.
< 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 >
|