Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [OM] wide angles

Subject: RE: [OM] wide angles
From: Olaf Greve <Ogreve@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:49:53 +0100
Hi,

> Yes, it is a pity the 21/3.5 was tested with an OM-1. That's before Gary
> realized and reported the performance loss with the -1.  But I think
> with a 21mm, there would be very little difference anyway.

Perhaps, but still it feels a bit like comparing apples and oranges...
Either way: the good news is that Gary plans to re-do the test of the 21/3.5
using a 4T, so soon we should be able to benchmark them somewhat  better...

> I'm not discounting the tests at all, I value them highly and refer to
> them often. I'm just saying there are limits as to how they can be
> interpreted.  

I know, I basically first looked at the grades f5.6+ grades of both lenses
and noticed that the 21/3.5 slightly seemed to have the edge there, then I
went on to look at the more wide open apertures and noticed that the f3.5
aperture of the 21/3.5 has comparable grades as the f2 and f2.8 apertures of
the 21/2. Then I took the 4T vs. 1 difference in to account and stated that
the 21/3.5 seems to slightly have the edge. However, when viewed from a
different perspective (as you pointed out already), you could roughly view
the 21/2 as a lens with equally good grades from f5.6 and up, with better
performance at f4 vs. the 21/3.5 at f3.5, and with pretty reasonable f2 and
f2.8 results into the bargain...:)

> All that said, I want to also point out that the 21/2 performs very well
> indeed below f/5.6, one of the better fast lens performances in the
> tests. In fact, at F/4 it is a full grade better than the 3.5 
> at 3.5 and is even capable of B+ performance wide open.  I'd say the 21/2
> is a great performing lens (look at the contrast data too).  In fact,
> they both are top quality lenses.

Thanks! This is indeed the kind of discussion I was looking for. I was
basically wondering what people think of these two lenses after having used
them personally, and then preferrably someone who has used both of them.

> The main diffrences are price and speed. 

Aaaah, the eternal trade-off :)

> If your budget is limited, get the 21/3.5  It's a great lens and has a
> very high price-performance ratio.  If you can afford a bit more and
> want/need the extra 1 2/3 stops of speed, get the 21/2 and know it'll
> perform very well indeed at wide apertures and stopped-down.

Excellent! Now I know I should take my time to look for an affordable 21/2
and pick up a 21/3.5 if I can find it as a steal-deal...

Cheers!
Olafo


< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz