The 14-35/2 is a seriously spectacular lens, yes - but when it's in fact
bigger and heavier than the "more-than-equivalent" full-frame option
(i.e. any modern 24-70/2.8) it's a tad less compelling.
But, ergonomics / size aside, the image quality is by all accounts
spectacular. These babies should become cheaper and cheaper on
eBay etc. as the four thirds system dies.
Dawid
On 30 Mar 2012, at 4:40 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>
> Yup. It's the 14-35/2. Now, I'm clueless what kind of "tobacco" those
> Zuiko engineers were smoking when they designed it, but that's a lens
> which is simply unreal. Honestly, this thing is the spiritual
> successor to the 35-80/2.8. The imagery through the viewfinder and in
> the pictures has me almost speechless.
>
> Almost. But again, I am on the verge of risking a Moose dropping.
>
> I've got to digest what I've seen tonight. Something just ain't right
> with that boy.
>
> AG 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/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|