Hi Everyone.
I'm of the same view as Bill.
I originally had just a 28mm and I always thought that the 24mm would be the
hot ticket... for me it just isn't.
I find it too wide for the subjects I want to shoot with it and this results
in shots with too much background and not enough detail to crop how I want.
I have an 18mm for when I want to go W...I...D...E and I thought the 24mm
would replace the 28mm. In reality it just sits in the camera bag.
IMO 28mm is a REALLY nice focal length. It enables me to add a little or a
lot of "wide angle" to a shot depending on camera position. With the 24mm it
is more of an all or nothing... I suppose the 24mm may be a better lens for
landscapes but I just don't shoot many landscapes.
I know I could probably learn to use the 24mm in a way that satisfied me but
I just like the 28mm... And from my experiences even cheap 28mms capture
very nice images. It seems to be one of those focal lengths that is a little
easier to manufacture to high standards.
- Matt Crawley
bspearce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I didn't even think about the 24. One of my earliest OM purchases was a
> 24/2.8 SN. I used it for years. I then added the 21/2, and several years
> later, the 28/2. I haven't used the 24 since I got the 21. Not once.
>
> Although I love the 28-48, I long ago sold my 75-150. Reminded me too much
> of my 43-86 nikkor. Someday, I would like to add the 50-250, and suspect it
> ould make a good two lens kit with the 28-48, but size challenged.
>
> Bill Pearce
< 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 >
|