Hello Chris,
Chris Barker wrote:
> I suppose that it is the size of the slower lens (smaller glass/less
> "front"). For instance, the 28/2 that I have just bought is heavier and
> larger (although still 49mm filter diameter) than the 28/2.8 that I swapped
> for a 40/2.
and, do you think that the 28mm/2.0 renders better images than the 2.8?
I have doubts, but I can not compare it any longer, because I sold the
28mm/2.8 a long time before I bought again an 28mm lens, the 2.0 Zuiko.
I liked the performance of the 28mm/2.8.
Richard
< 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 >
|