Frank Ernens wrote:
>Some of the distortion is an artefact of the lens. The 24/2 supposedly
>has less than the 24/2.8. 28mm primes don't exhibit it.
The 'distortion' under discussion was, I thought, a product of focal length
- fewer mm=more exaggeration of perspective. So why would one 24mm have
more than another? I'm confused.
>I would
>advise against settling for a third-party 28 because you would be
>tempted to use it for real shots. It would be better to buy the
>first good 24 or 28 you see and learn to use that.
I agree, if you can afford it you will be better off in the long run. A
clean Zuiko 28/2.8 won't set you back much. Third party lenses vary hugely
in quality, the better ones will be almost much as the Zuiko. A point to
consider: the Zuiks will all focus in the same direction, have the aperture
ring in the 'right' place (on primes, at least) and will undoubtedly produce
better photographs than those created using Third Party lenses, at least to
the average Zuikoholic ;-)
Simon E.
< 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 >
|