on 8/7/01 6:24 AM, Bernd Möller at 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
>
No question here... you need both. In fact you need two of each!. My
35-70/3.6 yields very nice sharp pictures, is easy to handle, and isn't
really all that big... OK, so its a bit bigger than the 35-70/3.5-4.5. I do
notice that the smaller lens gets a bit dark on the split-image at the long
end, which is not a factor with the 3.6. Plus, the way the 3.6 works with
the lens hood is really a great design. I think there may also be a
consideration of one of them rotates the front element/filter ring while
focusing...? That might be an annoyance using a polarizer. But the small
lens is almost as small as a 50/1.4 so you can carry it in the normal
'never-ready' case.
I can't see any problem with having one of each except that's not enough of
each...
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|