In issue #18 of the Visionage magazine there is an article by Dan Norris
"Ancient Images in Canyon Country", featuring a lot of brilliant photos,
including long exposures, taken with the 24/2.8. He says it is his most
used lens. I guess he would use the F2 version if it gave him better
results.
I have used a 24/2.0 for more than 10 years, but apart from the extra
F-stop, which is nice to have in lowlight situations without a tripod, I
don't know if the results are better than with the 24/2.8.
Lars
----------
> Fra: james olson <james_olson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Til: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Emne: [OM] for tripod work: 24/2.8 or 24/2?
> Dato: 21. marts 2001 00:20
>
> I just received a 24/2.8 from a list member.... I've had a 24/2 for
years.
> I will be heading to Utah for a week of photography on Thursday. I am
> planning on shooting on a tripod quite a bit...
>
> I've read the lens reviews, and both get "A" gradings at F/ 5.6 to 8....
> which is where I would shoot landscapes.
>
> My question: as I won't be needing the extra stop of light, will I be
just
> as happy with the 24/2.8 for landscape work? I would really welcome
> comments from people that have used both.
>
> The 49mm filter size is a plus, too. Travel kit: 24/2.8, 50/3.5,
100/2.8.
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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 >
< 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 >
|