Hi Paul,
I own the /2.8 and like it, it's useful as a general purpose wide angle
lens. Think colors and flare are very well managed, though I wish I could
have bought the /2 when had to decide. The f22 is sometimes very helpful.
And it's nearly as inexpensive as the 3.5, which means you can jump into
water holding it on your hand an won't feel you've lost a fortune. Besides,
after drying it, it will remain completely functional _ believe me, I know
what I'm talking about.
For accurate grading, check:
<http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default_m.htm>
Fernando.
on 18/07/2005 11:10, bs.pearce@xxxxxxx at bs.pearce@xxxxxxx, wrote:
> I've never even seen the 3.5 version, but I have the F2. It is perhaps the
> sharpest lens I've ever owned. Highly recommended.
>
> Bill Pearce
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martinez, Paul" <Paul.Martinez@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 8:59 AM
> Subject: [OM] Zuiko 28/2 vs. 28/3.5 opinions
>
>
>> Hello everybody, I'm new to the list.
>>
>> I want a 28mm Zuiko and really like the idea of a F/2.0 lens, but many of
>> the opinions I see posted talk about the F/3.5 lens having better "pop" in
>> use. I'd be using it mainly for landscapes from F5.6-11. While I would
>> welcome the brighter viewfinder image from the F/2 lens, it's the final
>> quality I'm most interested in. Looking for opinions from someone who has
>> used both. I know ther is also a F/2.8 version but I hear very little good
>> comments about that one.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Paul
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|