can anyone who's used both of these help me argue this with myself?
there's a little voice in my mind that always takes the same stance:
"faster is better", and it wants me to buy the f:3.6. however, in
the recent set of lens tests, the other lens seems to fare quite well
in comparison.
other than the additional speed (what is that, 2/3 stop or so at the
long end?), what advantages does the f:3.6 constant lens have that
justifies its higher cost? less distortion? higher resolution? contrast?
since i'm unlikely to find either of them locally, i'll probably end up
mail-ordering one from somewhere, and i'd rather not have to deal with
the hassles of returning it.
--
| Napoleon wore a black hat
joe jackson | Ate lots of chicken
e3ujxj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | And conquered half Europe
< 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 >
|