At 08:32 PM 2/11/01 -0500, Dane Skye wrote:
[snip]
For example, I want a 24mm- is the Zuiko 2.8 or 2 the way to go? The Reese
tests make it look like the 2.8 is the one, but a local guy said the 2 was
the better in the 24 and 35mm lengths and the 2.8 was as good in the 28.
The Reese tests leave me with the 24/2.8 and 28/2 as the better. see what I
mean.
Dane:
I've never liked the 24mm Zuikos (actually, that's not fair -- I've never
liked 24mm focal length in *any* of the 35mm interchangeable lens systems
I've seen). To me, your last stop on the "wide, but little if any
noticeable distortion" trail is the 28mm, and the Zuiko 28/2.0 (which I
own) is a fabulous performer. By the time I get to 24mm, I might as well
go to 21mm or even 18. I own the 21/2.0, and it's incredibly useful for
landscapes and/or tight spaces (narrow streets in Europe, for
example). It's also an awesome lens in its own right.
Others will disagree, but my favourite combo for wides is the 28 and
21. If I pack three lenses, it's 28, 21 and 100; if four, I add the
200. But if only one, for me it's a toss-up between 28 and 50. (!)
Just my opinion.
Garth
"A bad day doing photography is better
than a good day doing just about
anything else."
The Unofficial Olympus Web Photo Gallery at:
http://www.taiga.ca/~gallery/
< 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 >
|