Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 24/2 (was: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2?)

Subject: Re: 24/2 (was: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2?)
From: plp@xxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:22:42 GMT
Cc:
> That is some nasty waveform distortion.  I think I will look
> for a 24/2.8 instead.  Gary's tests are vindicated once again.
>
> In the pass I was very concern about distortion (that is why
> I missed the chance of buying a like new 40/2 at $80 in 1988,
> the distrotion of this lens was reported to be 1.3%). Now I
> know besides distortion there are much more other things too.
> I once own the 24/2.8 but finally I keep the 24/2 , one of
> the reason is the large aperture that allow you to make
> accurate focus easier.

C.H., now I get it. What you are really telling me to do is to
skip the 24mm size altogether and buy a 21/2.   ;-)


Pete





________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

< 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