I've owned all three, both SC and MC 21/3.5 and the 21/2. In normal use, I
honestly couldn't pick out which picture was taken by which lens. Overall
the 21/2 might be a little sharper, but the difference is small and the
21/3.5 is so much smaller and lighter that I like it too.
As for flare, I haven't found it to really be a problem with any of the
three. Let's face it, shoot into the sun with a super-wide and you'll get
flare. Will the SC version flare more? Probably, but the differences are
pretty small.
The 21/3.5 I have now is a silvernose with a less than perfect front
element. Doesn't bother me at all.
Tom
> Hi Guys,
>
> At present I'm working on a website for another camera store. Part of the
> payment may consist of a Zuiko 21mm lens, and in 2,5 hours from now I will
> stop by the shop to determine if that will be indeed the case.
>
> Before I do so, I was wondering a bit about everyone's experiences of the
> performance of the 21/3.5 SC vs the MC variant and vs the 21/2 lenses
> (which, I think, are all MC?). Normally I'm hardly bothered by the SC vs.
MC
> issue, but as this is an ultra wide angle, flare might become an issue.
So,
> let's assume the lens will be the oldest model that exists, which would be
a
> silvernose 21/3.5, can someone give me an indication as to how much
> difference one should expect in the amount of flare given by such a
version
> vs the MC version(s)?
>
> Cheers!
> Olafo
>
< 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 >
|