Many thanks Dreammoose,
I searched the archives and found a thread in 97. The
most current archive posted is of 2000. If anyone
remembers the discussion dreammoose is referring
to(more recent than '97) and has a copy filed away I
would appreciate a copy of it.
Andre
--- dreammoose <dreammoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There was a lot of discussion of this a few months
> back. I remember that
> the 2.0 is far superior, not just because of being a
> newer design, but
> because of the wider aperture. As I recall, the 3.5
> can't open up far
> enough to overcome diffraction effects at high
> magnifications? ...or
> some such. In any case, the 2.0 is capable of
> sharper results.
>
> Moose
>
> Andre Goforth wrote:
>
> >Oly made 2 versions of the 20 mm macro. A f3.5 and
> a
> >f2.0. What are the pluses and minuses of these two
> >versions. The f3.5 is the older model right?
> >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|