kelton wrote:
> Replaced the 24
> with a 21, but still miss that 24 and the rest of my old kit. Where do
> psychologists go when they're depressed?
>
I did the same mistake several years ago and traded the 24:2.8 for a
21:3.5. The 21:3.5 is great for pictures of e.g. birdnests or plants, if
you also want to include the environment, but otherwise it is not nearly
as usable as the 24:2.8. The quality of the transparencies differ also;
I got clearer and crisper pictures with the 24:2.8 and the enges were
sharper. I think that the 50:3.5 macro also has this "crispness" quality
which I can not find it in the 50:2.0 macro, even if it maybe is a bit
sharper. These are my subjective opinions, I have not made any serious
tests.
Mikael
< 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 >
|