The 21/3.5 is my favorite lens (but the 300/4.5 + 1.4X-A is starting to
come close). I've never used a f/2, but have always been completely
satisfied with the f/3.5. Also, if you're concerned about damage, the
21/2 isn't much cheaper than the 18/3.5, although the front element isn't
as vulnerable.
You can see one of my 21/3.5 photos (along with a bunch of 300+1.4X-A) at
http://www.cybermesa.com/~markml/Colorado/elk.html
although I don't think the small web photo does the lens justice.
I also think that the Olympus hood for the 21/3.5 does wonders,
especially with my SC sample.
Mark Marr-Lyon
>Looking for a 21mm lens to put in my street bag. I have been using the
>18/3.5, but want to keep that at home to protect from damage.
>
>Is the f2 version that much better than the 3.5? brightness in the
>screen is not a problem as I have a 2 series screen, and am used to
>looking through the 18/3.5. Also, if there is a beater 21/3.5 out
>there, I might also be interested as appearance is the least of my
>concerns, but it must perform well.
>
>Any advice and discussion is welcome. Also, the street bag is: OM-4Ti,
>35 shift, 85/2, and if I am feeling strong I throw in the 16/3.5 and
>200/4.
>
>I am also going to do some tests on the performance of the 200/4
>compared to the 85/2 + 2x-A. looking through the lens there isn't much
>difference, and w/ the 85+2x-A combo, the min focus is a lot closer!
>
>Thanks in advance for all the seasoned advice!
>
>
>Bob Gries
< 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 >
|