Tom,
Thanks for the reply. I did not know of the Cosina one. I would always
pass on it. In fact, from what I have gotten from you and others, I will
probably go with the 3.6 version when I find one at a reasonable price.
I consider all my Olympus stuff pretty light compared to the Large
Format stuff I have been known to lug around, so the 3.6's extra weight
is of negligible concern to me.
Thanks again,
John
Tom Scales wrote:
>
> Ah, one of the favorite Zuikuestions. In the range, nothing is better than
> the 35-80 f/2.8. The price, unfortunately, is quite high -- around $1000
> used (yes, gasp).
>
> Of the remaining four, the 35-70/3.6 is the sharpest (it was the top of the
> line until the 35-80 came out), but also heavy. The 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 is
> light and wonderful, my personal favorite.
>
> The 35-70 f/4 is between the too, closer to the size of the 3.6, but
> lighter, bigger than the 3.5-4.5. I think the 3.5-4.5 replaced the f/4. Not
> a bad lens, and certainly the best bargain in the bunch.
>
> The last choice, literally, is the 35-70/3.5-4.8 (notice the 4.8). It's a
> Cosina made lens, marked as a Zuiko and usually came in a kit with the
> OM-2000. Just not on par with the others.
>
> For my personal choice, the 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 wins, hands-down. Light and
> easy to use. Nice and sharp. A wonderful travel lens. My second choice
> would be the 35-70/3.6. A better lens, and sharper, but at a weight
> penalty. If you want to experiment with the focal length at the lowest
> price, pick up a 35-70/4 and use it. If you like the focal length, sell it
> and 'upgrade'.
>
> By the way, the 35-70/3.5-4.5 and the 28-48/4 feel very similar.
>
> Didn't help, did I <g>.
>
> Tom
>
< 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 >
|