>I wouldn't rush into a 21/2. The 21/3.5 is a wonderful
lens and while I do own the 21/2, I am not sure it is
worth the extra money.
Does anyone else own both the 21/2 and 21/3.5, and can
compare their performance? According to Gary's lens
tests, both are excellent lenses. The greater light of
the faster lens sure would be nice, but at a cost. Just
how much better is the 21/2 over the 21/3.5?
Pete
Extreme wide angles are the most difficult for an SLR to focus
because of the negative magnification factor. Some people feel that
the feeling of definitely being in focus with the faster lens(smaller
depth of field) is an advantage although many of us are happy with
the 3.5. There is certainly more than enough depth of field at that
focal length to cover a small focus error. Besides the advantage of
speed the F2 has a floating close focus correction lens which should
help get sharper close ups. It lets it get very close - 20 cm. On
the other hand, in spite of special glass, it has 11 elements which
will tend to flare more than the slower 7 element 3.5.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California, USA
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|