Some say the f/2.0 has moustache-shaped distortion, and is less sharp than
the f/2.8 (nothing that a razor and a handful of shaving cream cannot cure,
anyhow :) but it is definitely better in the close focusing range (thanks to
the floating elements that the humble f/2.8 doesn't have).
I do own the f/2.8 and it is amazingly small, sharp and corrected.
Ciao!
Fabio
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Dawid Loubser <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The olympus.dementia.org site is pure gold, thank you so much for the
> reference!
>
> In anyway, in the opinion of you experienced OM shooters, is the 24mm
> f/2.0 worth
> it over the f/2.8 version? I am getting one in anyway, but I was
> wondering if there
> are any pertinent areas where the f/2.0 does worse than it's smaller,
> slower sibling?
>
> regards,
> Dawid
>
> On 24 Sep 2008, at 11:32 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
>
> >
> > As Iwert has explained, Dawid, that was a tease. Here's an image of a
> > 24/3.5 (for sale at www.ffordes.com , and no connection, it's not
> > mine!)
> >
> > <https://secure.ffordes.com/Shop/Images/used/370684.jpg>
> >
> > It is quite a bit bigger than the 24/2.0 and nearly 2x the weight -
> > you can
> > get all the detailed information from the renowned eSIF at
> > <http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif.htm>, and parts diagrams
> > etc are at
> > <http://olympus.dementia.org/Hardware/olympus_hw.html>
> >
> > --
> > Piers
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf
> > Of Dawid Loubser
> > Sent: 24 September 2008 09:47
> > To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [OM] Re: Greetings from a new member
> >
> >
> > Hi Piers,
> >
> > My reason for going with the f/2.0 is that I really do quite a bit of
> > low-light shooting. Tell me, is the f/2.0 much inferiour to, say,
> > the 2.8 or
> > 3.5 in terms of bright-light, stopped-down photography? I understand
> > it has
> > pronounced distortion, but apart form that (and bigger physical
> > size) am I
> > compromising on too much?
> >
> > I am itching for the 18mm.... very much so.... Especially since
> > there now
> > one for sale on this list at a reasonable price :-)
> >
> > And yes, I can understand the term "Zuikoholic" looking at the
> > addiction
> > these lenses seem to cause, but I am trying to keep things within
> > moderation, based on the sort of photography I do. And one big
> > reason for
> > going this route is also the compactness, it's really not always
> > feasible to
> > lug the big canon kit around. I am not a "collector"
> > but rather a "user" and I will happily try something out and then
> > re- sell
> > it is it doesn't suit my style... so I am hoping the Zuikoholic
> > tendencies
> > will be kept at bay for me.
> >
> > I want compact, top-quality, reliable kit for walk-around and
> > contemplative
> > photography, and a couple of lenses should cover that. I do see the
> > merit
> > of, staying say within the 24mm - 90mm range, having two sets of
> > lenses, one
> > low-light (and bulkier), the other ultra-small travel kit for daytime
> > photography, with similar portability to Leica M kit, but I do
> > prefer a SLR
> > for the type of work I do in terms of close- up and precise
> > composition.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 24 Sep 2008, at 9:38 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "That should do it for now, eh?"
> >>
> >> Oh my, have you got something to learn Dawid!
> >>
> >> But it's a nice start - you will need the 18/3.5, and probably should
> >> have opted for a 24/3.5 instead of a 24/2. Welcome to the top of the
> >> long slippery slope.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Piers
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
> >> Behalf Of Dawid Loubser
> >> Sent: 24 September 2008 07:04
> >> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: [OM] Greetings from a new member
> >>
> >>
> >> --snip
> >>
> >> * What appears to be a mint OM-1n + 50mm f/1.8 MC
> >> * 24mm f/2.0
> >> * 50mm f/1.4 (SN > 1,100,000)
> >> * 90mm f/2.0 Macro
> >>
> >> That should do it for now, eh?
> >>
> >> --snip
> >>
> >>
> >> ==============================================
> >> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> >> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> ==============================================
> >
> >
> >
> > ==============================================
> > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> > List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> > ==============================================
> >
> >
> > ==============================================
> > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> > List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> > ==============================================
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
--
The definitive answer to the meaning of life, universe and everything else
is: 42.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
