Andrew,
I encourage you to seriously consider the 24mm instead of the 28 for
landscapes, should you decide to not get the 100mm that is. That 4mm
difference is quite striking in your pictures and gives an extra edge in
exaggerating size relationships and perspective. In my own experience I
bought the 28mm first due to economic reasons. When I could (finally)
afford the 24mm, I found a perfectly fine 28 sits in its case most of the
time; I always reach for the 24 first. The 2.8 version is much less
expensive than the 2.0 one and every bit as good. Just one person's
opinion - your mileage may (and probably will) vary. Food for thought......
John P
Andrew Wiese <awaxx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>If that's not where my money goes, I'll get a 28/f2 or 2.8 to replace my
>just barely acceptable T*mr*n 28-70 zoom instead, which I only use for
>wide angles.
< 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 >
|