Ray,
My problem is the definition of better. To my limited eye, the differences
in quality between the faster and slower are usually impossible to tell.
There are always exceptions, but in a lot of cases the question becomes 'new
lens' vs. 'old lens', meaning there is a new formula. For example, I think
the new 'made in japan' 50/1.8 is 'better' than the original SC 50/1.4.
Personally, I have more slower than faster. For example, I recently sold my
21/2 for a 21/3.5. Probably no question the 21/2 is a little 'crisper'
(perhaps) and probably less subject to flare. My decision was based on
three things: 1) The 21/3.5 is cheaper, 2) the 21/3.5 is smaller and 3) the
21/3.5 uses 49mm filters.
I'm a true proponent of the original OM-1 theory. Small and light. I
almost always prefer the smaller lens to the larger lens. There are
exceptions, of course, such as the 90/2. Even in the 100, I prefer the
100/2.8, although I use the 100/2 for portraits (probably as much because of
its reputation as the actual difference). I also like carrying a kit that
all use the same size filters (even though I'm not a big filter user).
In the end, though, if you want the 'best kit', you're probably better off
with the faster version of the lens. If you want the 'ultimate kit', make
sure you have them all.
Ok, my opinion is personal and not based on any facts, so feel free to
discard at will.
Tom
From: "Ray Moth" <ray_moth@xxxxxxxxx>
> Dear All,
>
> I'm re-posting this (in abbreviated form) because nobody seems to
> remember it (too soon after the holiday?) I'd really like to hear some
> opinions or, at the very, least get flamed ;-).
>
> My question concerns the selection of prime lenses, where Zuiko offers
> more than one option at a particular focal length, as is often the
> case. Some examples that come to mind (after cheating by referring
> to Hans's Unofficial Sales Information site), ignoring macro and
> shift lenses, are:
>
> 21mm at f/2.0 or 3.5; 24mm at f/2.0 or 2.8;
> 28mm at f2.0, 2.8 or 3.5; 35mm at f/2.0 or 2.8;
> 50mm at f/1.2, 1.4 or 1.8; 100mm at f/2.0 or 2.8;
> etc.
>
> It becomes increasingly difficult for the lens designer to eliminate
> aberrations and distortion, as the maximum aperture increases. The
> faster the lens, the bigger and more expensive it is and the difference
> in cost can be quite big. Even so, a fast lens may give an advantage of
> only one f-stop, or even less, over its slower sibling and it could
> actually have inferior performance.
>
> In your opinion, then, what cases exist in the Zuiko range where the
> slower alternative is actually a better all-round choice for most
> people, considering size, weight, cost and assuming one can actually
> live with the smaller maximum aperture?
>
> (Answers that contain typical cop-out clauses like "it depends on what
> you want to do with it" will not be considered valid :-))
>
> Regards,
>
> =====
> Ray
>
< 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 >
|