I only have the 35-70 3.5-4.5, and from my experience
this lens has been a real champ for me. The pictures
aren't as sharp as the prime lenses I have around that
range (28 2.8, 50 1.4 and 100 2.8), but you cannot
beat the weight or the fact that itll fit in a
standard case. In addition to this the fact that its a
pretty 'cheap' lens seems to get rid of some of the
fear of using it, at least for me. I'm basically
saying that the good points of this lens far outweigh
its bad points and more often than not you might be
reaching for it than the bigger zoom
--- Bernd_Möller <berndm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> A topic which may have been discussed earlier, but
> I'll dare to put it up again.
>
> I've been using my 3.5-4.5 35-70 for quite a long
> time now with rather satisfying results, but recent
> comparisions with my primes have shown me some lack
> of sharpness.
>
> Now as I've seen a used 3.6 for sale, I wonder
> whether it would be a good buy. Price is just over
> 200 USD. Gary Reese has gotten better test results
> with the 3.6, but on the other hand the small size
> of the 3.5-4.5 is rather important for me. However,
> I am willing to sacrifice compactness (together with
> the $$$) for better performance, keeping the 3.5-4.5
> for occasional shootings. What do you think? A
> reasonable thought or a strike of Zuikoholism?
>
> Regards
>
> Bernd Möller
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.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 >
|