On 24 Mar 2005, at 10:50, Moose wrote:
> jking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> ........ my
>> question is it worth buying the 21mm and 24mm F2s? when I already
>> have the
>> 24mm F2.8 and 21mm f3.5.
>>
>> The reason I ask is the the lens tests for the 28 and 35 F2s show
>> siginificantly beter performance and good performance over a wider
>> range
>> than the cheaper zuikos and the 28mm F2 has a very good reputation
>> (can't
>> wait for it to arrive). However when you look at the performance
>> figures
>> for the 21mm and 24mm things are less clear. Has anyone made a
>> comparison?
>> The extra speed does not bother me. I take night photos and
>> architecture
>> and landscapes etc - things that don't require high shuter speeds
>> when you
>> have a good tripod... My only interest is clarity and contrast.
>>
>>
> I don't think you will see a difference at the same f-stops in lenses
> in
> top condition. I occasionally think about getting a 21/2, but strictly
> for the almost 2 stops of speed. I've never seriously considered
> getting
> a 24/2, as it is only one stop faster than the f2.8.
>
I have, and use, both, moose. The 24/2.8 is a great little gem, and it
goes well with the 100/2.8 or 85/2.0 in a "49mm kit". On the other
hand, the 24/2 pairs well with a 55/1.2 and 135/2.8 in a more heavy
"55mm kit" ;) Add the appropriate longer, shorter and intermediate
focal-lengths with corresponding 49 and 55mm filter sizes, as is
appropriate for your level of zuikoholism ;)
Of course, one must have both......no?
I have no experiences with Zuiko's wider than 24mm, so I am at a loss
when it comes to commenting on the 21/2 vs 21/3.5.
> I do have the 28/2 and it is indeed very nice. I also have a 35/2.8,
> but
> only as a sort of place holder, as I almost never use a 35mm prime,
> that's mostly zoom country for me
To me, the problem with the 28/2 is, that it is not a 55mm filter
thread. Don't get me wrong, I like "small" as much as the next guy, but
I'd occasionally like to toss a 28mm in my 55mm kit without having to
carry along an extra pol-filter. It seems to me that the 28/2.8 is a
better option: excellent optical performance and often a very
reasonable price. And with a 28mm, the 35mm does become (in all other
than the Zuikoholic sense of the word, of course) superfluous.
I rarely use zooms, btw., with the 28-48mm being the notable exception
here ;)
Here with me me, the 28/2 lives happily in a small bag with the 85/2 --
both kinda odd cousins in the Zuiko-family in that they're /2, but
49mm. Nice lenses otherwise (the 85/2 is among my favorites, and one of
the much overlooked gems in the Zuiko line-up, in my humble opinion).
> . I seem to recall posts from members
> who were unhappy with particular copies of the 35/2, claiming the f2.8
> was as good or better, or maybe that it wasn't any good wide open, so
> why spend the extra money, somehitng like that.
>
As someone who has both the 35/2.8 and 35/2 versions, my (strictly
unscientific) verdict is the following: at equivalent f-stops, the
lenses seem to perform equivalently. I.e. the 35/2 stepped down to f8
is, really, just a bigger version of the 35/2.8 stepped down the same
amount ;)
The advantage of the /2 version is, that it in principle is easier to
focus, what with the extra stop and slightly shallower dof -- however
with wide-angles already having a generous dof, I doubt that this is
much of a consideration.
I'm not unhappy with my 35/2, although it isn't outstanding -- and
getting a 35/2 over a /2.8 should not justify spending a truckload of
extra money, imho. The /2 and /2.8 are on par.
But I never was much of a wide-angle-person, so take the above with a
grain of salt. There are listees with much more experience than I in
this area.
--thomas
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|