On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 03:00 PM, Siddiq wrote:
worse in what sense? is there a compelling reason to get the constant
aperture vs the 3.5-4.5 one?
For image quality from top to bottom in that zoom range I think it
would go 3.6, 4, 3.5-4.5. Same rank for size and weight. The 3.6 was
the deluxe highest quality lens when it came out and was Olympus' best
effort. Had a very nice hood which is difficult to find that fastened
farther up the barrel and the lens zoomed inside the hood giving
variable angle shading to the lens wide at wide angles and narrow at
telephoto. Besides its good resolution the images from it have a kind
of subtle, silky quality to them that is beautiful, but hard to pin
down.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
< 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 >
|