I own both: my 2.8 (173xxx) is MC, and the 3.5 (358xxx) is SC (I think
_all_ 3.5's are SC).
The main problem with the 3.5 is that it can't handle high contrast/extreme
backlighting scenes very good -- the MC 2.8 works much better in these
situations.
On the other hand, the 3.5 _feels_ much lighter and smaller than the 2.8,
and takes 49mm filters (versus 55mm the 2.8). The viewfinder is not much
dimmer with the f/3.5 aperture -- the microprisms and split image still
work great.
About sharpness & contrast, I find _very_ hard to tell the difference
between the two lenses. The only noticeable difference is when lenses are
wide open; obviously, the 2.8 is somewhat softer (or, better said, 'less
sharp' ;-) than the 3.5. However, If you want this lens mainly for
portraits, this is a good thing -- and bokeh is great!
>From f/4 or f/5.6 and beyond, they're quite similar. Well, the 2.8 _may_ be
*very slightly* sharper, and the 3.5 _seems_ *very slightly* more contrasty
-- when not in backlight ;-)
...
Carlos Santisteban
<cjss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<cjsantis@xxxxxxxx>
< 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 >
|