There was a lot of discussion of this a few months back. I remember that
the 2.0 is far superior, not just because of being a newer design, but
because of the wider aperture. As I recall, the 3.5 can't open up far
enough to overcome diffraction effects at high magnifications? ...or
some such. In any case, the 2.0 is capable of sharper results.
Moose
Andre Goforth wrote:
Oly made 2 versions of the 20 mm macro. A f3.5 and a
f2.0. What are the pluses and minuses of these two
versions. The f3.5 is the older model right?
< 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 >
|