Dear All,
I'm re-posting this (in abbreviated form) because nobody seems to
remember it (too soon after the holiday?) I'd really like to hear some
opinions or, at the very, least get flamed ;-).
My question concerns the selection of prime lenses, where Zuiko offers
more than one option at a particular focal length, as is often the
case. Some examples that come to mind (after cheating by referring
to Hans's Unofficial Sales Information site), ignoring macro and
shift lenses, are:
21mm at f/2.0 or 3.5; 24mm at f/2.0 or 2.8;
28mm at f2.0, 2.8 or 3.5; 35mm at f/2.0 or 2.8;
50mm at f/1.2, 1.4 or 1.8; 100mm at f/2.0 or 2.8;
etc.
It becomes increasingly difficult for the lens designer to eliminate
aberrations and distortion, as the maximum aperture increases. The
faster the lens, the bigger and more expensive it is and the difference
in cost can be quite big. Even so, a fast lens may give an advantage of
only one f-stop, or even less, over its slower sibling and it could
actually have inferior performance.
In your opinion, then, what cases exist in the Zuiko range where the
slower alternative is actually a better all-round choice for most
people, considering size, weight, cost and assuming one can actually
live with the smaller maximum aperture?
(Answers that contain typical cop-out clauses like "it depends on what
you want to do with it" will not be considered valid :-))
Regards,
=====
Ray
"The trouble with resisting temptation is
you never know when you'll get another chance!"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
< 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 >
|