Gord,
Stopped down, no. But a 21 with f2 is just so comfortable when shooting low
light in cathedrals, interiors, chapels ore at twilight. the difference
between f3.5 and f2 is very big there. Plus the focussing screen becomes
much brighter, almost like there is no light loss with a 2-series screen.
I don't like flash photography for some reason, and it wouldn't work well
anyway with a 21mm. So I either don't take a picture because I don't like
the light, rather than using flash. And nowadays, flash shouts "I am taking
pictures, look at me, come and ask what I am doing, are you a terrorist?"
(haha, but it happened more and more the last year)
Iwert.
on 30-12-2003 08:17, Gordon J. Ross at gordross@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Iwert:
>
> "And photography is all about catching light, isn't it?" -if you are willing
> to get your Ti dirty it is. I have the 21/3.5, 24/2.8, and am happy with
> them, stopped down is there really much discernable difference?
>
> Thanks Gord
< 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 >
|