Vrabec Marko wrote:
>Gary Reese wrote:
>>You need to tell us your price range and what you need in terms of
>performance
>>and weight and filter size.
>
>and Warren Kato wrote:
>>Although popular acclaim seems to indicate that the 3.6 is the best,
>the tests
>>shows that the others couldn't be too far behind. With this
>information and
>>your budget in hand, you should be able to pick the right lens.
>
>
>In terms of price I am prepared to go as far as the 3.6 model. In terms
>of optical performance it is my impression that 3.5-4.5 model has better
>contrast and more consistent image quality.
>
>I was just hoping to get some of those wonderful subjective opinions...
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>Marko Vrabec
>
OK, here's a few subjective opinions:
The 3.5-4.5 IMHO fulfills very high standards, at least when it comes to
sharpness. This may come as a surprise to many, as it is one of the lightest
zooms produced and quite plastic. It's hard to turn the aperture ring
without zooming in the same direction as rings are so close to each other.
Control of flare is very good, especially considered it's a zoom. Everything
could be as rosy as dawn, if it wasn't for pronounced barrel distortion at
the 35mm setting, at least in mine. Most of this list's members haven't
noticed it, those who have says it disappears at 40mm.
For me, straight horizons are very important (if I wan't something
different, I'll take the 16/3.5). My 35/2.0 delivers this and is a truly
great piece of glass.
Ulf Westerberg
PS. I take it you are armed with something? In case of polar bears, I mean.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|