I agree that the 1-4 is actually easier to focus. But mostly
wide-angle lenses. The 2-4 has that nifty shimmer when it hits
critical focus, but with wide-angle lenses you have to have a brutally
sharp lens wide-open to get it. Otherwise, you can't trust the bokeh
to help you because the way the microprism angles are it just doesn't
drift in and out of focus the same way. For telephoto lenses, the 2-4
is screaming good.
Speaking of screaming good...
The 28/2 is one of those unusual lenses which I have to really sit on
my hands for. 28mm really isn't my focal length, but man-alive, that
is one very sweet lens. I got to use Joel's at one of our mid-Iowa
Zuikofests, and had to return it rather quickly. First of all, I think
he was nervous about losing another lens to me, and secondly, I
wouldn't have wanted to return it.
What's not to like about the 28/2?
1. It's brutally sharp
2. It's bright
3. It's compact
4. It takes 49mm filters
5. It's got a contrast curve that wakes up the dead
6. Did I say that it's sharp?
7. It's got that 3D'ness of some of the last OM Zuiko designs.
In the world of "one lens, one camera", I'd take the 35mm focal
length. But if I were to go with only one wide-angle lens, it would be
the 28/2. That said, I've lived quite happily with my 24/2.8 for the
past 20 years. (second one, first one wore out a few years ago).
AG (so many lenses, so little film) Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|