Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Zuiko 24/f2.8 compared to the Zuiko 28/f2.8

Subject: Re: [OM] Zuiko 24/f2.8 compared to the Zuiko 28/f2.8
From: "Chris O'Neill" <coneill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 13:42:23 -0600
On 6 Sep 2000, at 12:21, John A. Lind wrote:

> If it's three you want to pack, you might try this combo:
>   24/2 or 2.8
>   35-105/3.5~4.5
>   135/2.8

Not considering the quality of the glass (cuz I don't own any of them), 
and not including the 24/2 or 2.8 (cuz I'm assuming you'd want that one 
anyway for the "super wide" angle), here's how the prices and weights 
line up (using the ranges given on the Unofficial Olympus OM Zuiko 
Lens Page):  

35-105/3.5~4.5 = US$270 - US$365 (weight = 470g)
135/2.8 = US$90 - US$170 weight = 360g)

for a combined total cost of around US$360 to US$535 and weighing in 
at 830g).  On the other hand...

35-70/3.5~4.5 = US$160 - US$200 (weight = 190g)
75-150/4 = US$80 = US$170 (weight = 440g)

for a combined total cost of around US$240 to US$370 and weighing in 
at around 630g).

With the latter combination you get a range of 35 to 150 instead of 35 to 
105 plus a 135 prime, and it all weighs just under 200g less.

So, my question would be is there a big enough difference in the 
"quality" of the first combination to make it worthwhile spending the 
extra couple hundred bucks and carrying the extra weight???  Or, is the 
latter combination "good 'nuff" unless you're either a pro, have an 
employer that's paying the tab, or like some of us can afford more 
expensive toys???  <G>  

Just wondering...

Chris

-------------------------------------------------
Chris O'Neill (coneill@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Web:  http://www.nucleus.com/~coneill

< 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