For the zoom sharpness and range, I had also the same thought in the
pass but not anymore. I found the Minolta AF24-50 I had was not as
sharp as the AF24-85, the Zuiko 35-105 is better than the
35-70/3.5-4.5. I think Tom S. can tell you how great his Zuiko 50-250
is.
For wide angles, the Zuiko 21/2 has very high resolution and good
flare resistance. I have no experience with the 21/3.5 but my friend
found his sample was not better than his 21/2. 18/3.5 is a very sharp
lens and has very good color saturation, light fall off is high and
flare resistance is not very good, the Zuiko 16mm fisheye is much
better in this department although they both cover a very wide angle.
C.H.Ling
Andy Gilbert wrote:
>
> Thanks for that, I'm pleased that a chance walk past my local camera shop
> yielded such a great lens! I assumed the 35-70/3.5-4.5 would be better due
> to the narrower range. I saw one at a trade show, just after I bought the
> 35-105, and didn't dare ask to see it, just in case! I've found the 35-105
> to be excellent, during a recent trip to Paris it was almost always used,
> though the 24/2.8 was worth taking as well. Which sets me thinking - I
> could have done with a more extreme wide angle on a few occasions. Can
> anyone compare the 21mm lenses, quality wise? Is the 18mm worth going for,
> given that I like wide angles?
>
> Andy Gilbert
> Exeter
> Devon
> England
< 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 >
|