I have the 3.6 and love it very much, the resolution is very high. Contrast
is a bit low but good for family shoots and portrait. It perform best at the
long end. The 35-80 is very different, although I have not own one before,
but I have seen the slides and the comment from my friend, the contrast is
at the high side. So they may share for different applications. That is also
the reason for me to own that many Zuikos, you need different lenses for
different weather and different objects :-)
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Hamm" <bhamm@xxxxxxxx>
> I don't have a lot of experience with the f3.5-4.5 version, but the f3.6
> version rapidly has become one of my favorite lenses. It is now the lens
> that I keep on my favorite 2n, and has seriously cut down the use time of
my
> 50 1.2. To have a zoom lens that delivers such high performance is
> fantastic. I'd say that 800f my shots fall withing the 3.6's focal range
> and I love the control it gives me regarding composition. Personally, I
> don't find it very large at all, especially when compared to my wife's
> similar Minolta setup. Before I acquired it, I had been socking some money
> away for the 35-80, but after seeing the results of the 3.6, I don't think
> the extra money spent on the 2.8 will yield a similar performance gain. Am
I
> wrong here? Maybe some of my fellow zuik-heads who have used both could
give
> me a comparison of the two.
>
>
> Bruce Hamm
> Ottawa, Canada
> bhamm@xxxxxxxx
> www.my-echo.net
< 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 >
|