Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 21/2 vs 21/3.5 (was: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2?)

Subject: Re: 21/2 vs 21/3.5 (was: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2?)
From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:50:51 -0400
I don't now, but I did for a long time.  The two 21s are perfect for what
they are intended. The 21/3.5 is little, light and takes 49mm filters.  I
mean little -- as small as a 50/1.8.  The performance is outstanding.  The
21/2 is a little bigger, takes 55mm filters and, of course, faster.  It also
takes wonderful pictures that have a special 'snap' to them.

Side by side, though, I would be hard pressed to tell which lens took which
picture.  I actually go back and forth.  For awhile I'll have a 21/3.5, then
a 21/2, then back to a 21/3.5, etc.  Kind of depending upon what went
through my hands.  Right now it is the 21/2.

Just pick the one that fits best in your kit!

Tom

> >I wouldn't rush into a 21/2.  The 21/3.5 is a wonderful
> >lens and while I do own the 21/2, I am not sure it is
> >worth the extra money.
>
> Does anyone else own both the 21/2 and 21/3.5, and can
> compare their performance? According to Gary's lens
> tests, both are excellent lenses. The greater light of
> the faster lens sure would be nice, but at a cost. Just
> how much better is the 21/2 over the 21/3.5?
>
>
> Pete
>
>



< 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