>Oh, Patrick, what influx of opinions you are about to infuse on the list
>about this subject--again. Without belaboring (or is it blaboring) the
>subject too much...
>My 35-70/2.8 has replaced a 35/2.8 and 50/1.4. Mine is extremely sharp (at
>16x20 the resolution exceeded the film grain), and the flat-fieldness is
>decent for macro work. With a de-elemented tele-converter (stay tuned for
>the conclusion to the saga--which is waiting for the results from the lab),
>I can get down below 1:1.
>Standard kit right now is 24/2.8, 35-70/2.8, 100/2.8, 200/2.8. Oh, sorry,
>but my zoom is not a Zuiko.
But is the "200/2.8" a Zuiko either?
Patrick, some of us on the List (well at least 2!) like the little, light
35-70/3.5~4.5 which also has a "Close Focus" setting. It may not have the
performance numbers of the 35-70/3.6, but it works well and is compact
enough to go anywhere! I have shunned mine for some months now, since I'm
on a small prime jag at present (40/2).
"The man who lives in the past is blind in one eye but the man who forgets
it is blind in both." Solzhenitsyn.
< 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 >