I have both 28mm / f 2.8 and a 24mm / f2.8 Zuiko lenses. The 28/2.8 get
little if any use and might find itself on the F/S list some time soon.
The 24/2.8 is one of my most frequently used lenses ....... the others
being my 50/1.2 and 85/2.0
I came across a 21mm / f3.5 Zuiko the other day. The additional 3mm
compared to my 24/2.8 did look to be a significant increase in angle of
coverage.
Does anyone have any opinion on their usage and enjoyment of the 21/3.5
as compared to the 24/2.8 and whether the 21/3.5 might be a useful and
wise long term investment?
John Hudson
I used a 21 before I switched to Olympus and the Zuiko 21/3.5 was the
first extra lens I got for my Oly. Great little lens. However, I was
pursuaded by Galen Rowell's arguments about the usefulness of the
24mm focal length. He was right. He also used the F2.8 version in
preference to the faster Nikon version because he felt it was
superior for the types of pictures that he makes.
Since getting the 24mm, I don't use the 21 much anymore, but for the
landscape shot with big object in the foreground with wide depth of
field it is fantastic. In addition to the significant difference
available without much change in the focal length there is also a
significant difference in how important it is to be perfectly level
when shooting without special effects in mind. The 21 seems much
more touchy that way.
Winsor
Winsor
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|