Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #1632

Subject: Re: [OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #1632
From: "Barry B. Bean" <bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 16:00:22 -0500 (CDT)
On Fri, 12 May 2000 11:16:11 -0700, Mark Marr-Lyon wrote:

>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?

That is true.

>Or is it the 18 and 21 that are too close together?

The 18's wider, but they're both very close to the point where I no
longer think in terms of wide and start thinking in terms of
distorted perspective. The difference between the 16 and the 21 just
makes more sense to me.

>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 :) 

You'll love the 21. Count on spending a few days walking around with
no other lenses and admiring that 21mm POV!

BB
-
B.B. Bean - Have horn, will travel                              
bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peach Orchard, MO                                       
http://www.beancotton.com/bbbean.shtml


< 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