On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Dawid Loubser<dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have heard so many varied opinions on this, but have yet seen very
> few images (preferably fairly high res)
> to show the character and performance of the OM Zuiko 35mm f/2.0. I
> know many (Ag Schnozz...) prefer the f/2.8
> version, but my style of shooting is largely centered on shallow depth
> of field, yet I like the 35mm focal length.
>
> Could you guys perhaps reply with some opinions and images taken with
> the 35mm f/2.0, preferably wide open? How would
> you rate the performance compared to later 50/1.8 lenses?
I dropped Giles Stewart's name in my response to you about the 80/4,
and another recollection of Giles comes to mind in this context. He
got a 35-80/2.8 shortly before I did (while I was still making up my
mind about it). We traded some off-list mail about it and his comment
was that with the 35-80 you can give your "primes a well-earned rest."
Shortly after he sold his 35/2 as I recall.
Do you need f2? That would be my consideration. However, everyone is
different and when I tend to gravitate to a moderate wide, I seem most
often to skip over 35 and go to 28, so take it with a grain of salt.
I suspect you "need" one. To make a rational decision, of course. ;^)
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|