Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 28mm f2.0 versus 28mm f3.5 was "2.8"

Subject: Re: [OM] 28mm f2.0 versus 28mm f3.5 was "2.8"
From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" <lamadoo@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 22:27:35 -0400
The thing is, there is lots of logic to Zuikoholism here.  With the 3.5, I
learned that the focal length is crucial to the stuff I want to capture.
While the 3.5 was really affordable, and I 'saw' in that angle of view, and
I used that lens for a long time, I am much happier with the 28/2.

Even though I like to use available light, it's not the speed advantage of
f/2 vs. f/3.5.  In my use, I just couldn't focus the 3.5 because it was so
soft.  It's not the viewfinder brightness.  I have never had problems
focussing the 100/2.8!!  The 28/2 is just a sharper lens.  The f/2 is good
enough.  The 3.5 wasn't.

The 28/2 has nine elements, fer Christ's sake!  I've gotta believe it's
better corrected than the 3.5.  I bought the 2 because I wanted the finest
tool in that focal length (in "User condition") because I 'see' in that
angle of view.  I don't have to fret anymore, wondering if I could make
better pictures if I had the better-corrected lens.  The limitations of the
3.5 don't get in my way anymore.

I am not a collector.  I don't lust after a circular fisheye because I
wouldn't use it.  But having something great at 28mm was a HIGH priority.

Mine has been painted and had numbers engraved in it by previous owners but
it's the tool for me.

Lama

From: "Richard F. Man" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Uh, you know what a true zuikoholic would say (which I guess I'm not
one --
> yet): get BOTH and find out yourself. In fact, get several of each to get
> the best ones... :-)



< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz