Each (individual) lens has a unique personality and must be judged on its
own merits. Other things being equal (and they rarely are), the more light
you have to work with the better, as light is the energy that carries the
image to you: more light=more image. Having said as much, in my opinion the
24mm f2.8 is as good, if not actually better, in terms of actual
performance than its brighter f2 brother. I rid myself of the latter and
kept the former for my own use. But then again that 24mm f2 I had was the
only one I've worked with, and for all I know that particular lens had
special issues, whereas the rest of the issue performs much better in the
field. For that matter, maybe I just happen to have a exceptionally good f2.8.
See what I mean?
Tris
At 07:18 PM 7/22/01 +0200, you wrote:
Why is the f2 better than the f2.8, except for the 2/3 step (or whatever
it is) in light?
Henrik
Looks to be in fair shape, and if it is you'll never put your eye to a
better performing Zuiko--unless it's a 28mm f2.
Tris
At 11:29 PM 7/22/01 +1000, you wrote:
Here's what I think is a rare chance to get one of these lenses that
I've been raving on about lately.
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1257671968
No reserve so should be good.
No connection to seller.
< 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 >
|