The ranking by quality AND weight heaviest and best quality to
lightest and least quality is:
3.5 - 4.5
3.5 - 4.8 (actually made by Cosina)
I have the 3.5 - 4.5 and it takes very nice sharp and contrasty pics,
and the size and weight is a real advantage for travel and other
occasions when you do not want to be weighted down. It is barely
bigger than a 50mm.
--- Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 03:00 PM, Siddiq wrote:
> > worse in what sense? is there a compelling reason to get the
> > aperture vs the 3.5-4.5 one?
> For image quality from top to bottom in that zoom range I think it
> would go 3.6, 4, 3.5-4.5. Same rank for size and weight. The 3.6
> the deluxe highest quality lens when it came out and was Olympus'
> effort. Had a very nice hood which is difficult to find that
> farther up the barrel and the lens zoomed inside the hood giving
> variable angle shading to the lens wide at wide angles and narrow
> telephoto. Besides its good resolution the images from it have a
> of subtle, silky quality to them that is beautiful, but hard to pin
> Long Beach, California, USA
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
< 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 >