Hi Alpinist,
You might get some dissenting opinions here, but IMHO I would stick with
the f2.8 lenses for what you want to do. The 2.8s are lighter, more
compact, and take 49 mm filters, all advantages in the field. At the
wider apertures the f2s might have a slight advantage optically, but I
have never noticed a real difference at f8-16 which is most likely what
you will be using for landscapes. I would definitely stick with the
Zuikos, and go with the slower lenses, I think you will be most happy
with the results.
alpinist wrote:
> Which are the better Zuiko's to have the f/2 or f/2.8 lenses? I shoot
> landscapes and work on a tripod, so speed does not really matter. Are
> the 2's better lenses than the 2.8's? or just faster? I was looking at
> the 24mm and 100mm focal lengths and a search of OM mt lenses came up
> likeNew Vivitar's around $100New Sigmas around $180Used Zuiko 2.8
> around $200New Zuiko 2.8 $300+Used Zuiko 2 $450New Zuiko 2 $700 Hold
> out for new 2's or would something else cut it?
--
Jim Couch
Tacoma, WA USA
< 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 >
|