Barry B. Bean wrote...
>Although this will do little to help you decide the issue, I have
>owned and used the 16/3.5, 18/3.5, 21/3.5, 24/2.8, and 28/2.8. I
>have gotten uniformly excellent results from each. I did sell the 18,
>as I just couldn't justify a lens between eh 21 and the 16 (and the
>funds helped me afford my 300/2.8), but it was a great performer.
I would have guessed that there would be more difference between
the 16 and 18, since the 16's a fisheye, and the 18 is rectilinear.
Is this true, or at this wide of an angle doesn't that really matter?
Or is it the 18 and 21 that are too close together?
>As for eh 24 and 21 complementing a 28, it's a judgement call. Each
>offers a unique enough perspective that I have no problem justifying
>all three. I tend to think of the 28 as a wide-normal, the 24 as a
>wide, and eh 21 as an ultra-wide.
Yes, that's what I've heard from others as well. I also think
that the 28 is just a "sorta-wide" angle, with a 35mm for me
feeling more like a "normal" lens.
>If you HAVE to pick one, I suppose the 21 would get the nod for it's
>extra coverage. I used mine last weekend shooting the prom for our
>local school. The room was too dark to focus even with my 50/1.4 and
>a 2 series screen, so I mounted eh 21, set it to hyper-focal, and
>went to work on dance floor/crowd shots. Great results.
Unfortunately, I do have to pick just one, so I'm going to be looking
for a 21/3.5, at least for right now. It's going to be part of a
"pre-graduation" present, in advance of finishing grad school in July.
After that, when I get a "real" job, I'm sure I'll be looking for
the others :)
Mark Marr-Lyon
< 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 >
|