Hi all,
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Brian Swale wrote:
> Hi Skip and fellow Zuiks,
>
> I've never owned this lens although I recently had the chance to get a mint
> one for $400NZ ($US166). But I often think about it and one comment that
> sticks in my mind that one or two listees repeat is that Pop Photography
> apparently said it was perhaps the least flare-prone lens they had ever
> tested.
>
> So who's telling the truth here?
>
I've got one (AG, are you listening? It's a silver-schnozz'ed one, even).
It's my only 35mm, but not the only wide angle I own.
I know that this is going to sound like a "duh" answer, but for every lens
I have or have ever used, I've managed to find a way to make flare.
Likewise, for every lens I own and use regularly, I've learned most its
strengths and limitations - including how to avoid flare'ing.....
When I use my 35/2, I do not find it to be any more flare-prone than any
other lens I use. I don't know if it's because the lens isn't flare-prone,
or because I just automatically avoid the situations where it would flare.
Actually, the 35/2 is in the process of replacing my trusty 50/1.8 as the
"always-in-the-bag" normal lens....
--
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|