From: "claire" <clairetm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
... Is
the f2 worth patiently saving for?
I recently "traded up," and have mixed feelings. There is absolutely
nothing wrong with the 21/2 in terms of optical quality, except its
size and weight. I used to keep the 21/3.5 on the body, but the 21/2
doesn't feel nicely balanced. The 21/3.5 is *tiny* -- much like the
16, 18, 40, and 50/1.8 -- and is well-suited to travel, especially
cycling, hiking, backpacking, etc.
That said, the nearly two stop difference is breathtaking in the
viewfinder, and my impression (without formal tests) is the 21/2 has
significantly less vingetting, which was quite noticeable on the
21/3.5.
So to summarize: get the 21/2 if you want the ultimate optical
performance, or the 21/3.5 if you want something that totes very
nicely.
: Jan Steinman <mailto:Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
: Bytesmiths <http://www.bytesmiths.com>
< 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 >
|