I agree and have very similar opinion on the 3.5-4.5 with Ulf. I had an
opportunity
to hold and view through an Zuiko 35~80/f2.8 at Yodobashi Camera back in March.
It is a supberb lens as advertised (ED glass and all), but it is bulky and
heavy.
It also requires 62mm diameter filter. All Zuiko lenses prior to this model are
either 49mm, 55mm, 72mm, or 100mm. The newer S Zuiko zoom 35~70/3.5-4.8
requires
a 52mm filter. The 3.5-4.5 requires only the 49mm filter and most economical.
Up on considering above, I still prefer the 35-70/3.5-4.5 for the use of the
family
travel - being light weight. In addition, I must carry a camcoder, battery,
etc.
Like Ulf indicated, I believe this lens was designed to be physically 'compact'
for its light weight and size. So I must be careful on rotating the aperature
ring when I do not want to change the zoom range. They are very close to each
other.
Jim Terazawa
>
> 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 >
|