Have you read Gary's tests of these 2 lenses
<http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm>? Some
interesting comments and the conclusion for the f3.6: "Primary
differences from 35-80mm f/2.8 Zuiko is that it requires f/11 for
optimum performance (vs. f/8) and isn't as useable wide open."
With primary use mostly with flash, you would be really wasting the f2.8
aperture with the 35-80 and carrying around a lot of weight as a result
that isn't being used. You might consider the 35-105/3.5-4.5, more reach
while shorter and lighter than the 35-80 and very little more than the
f3.6 in length and weight. Also of importance to me, the 35-105 focuses
closer at 1:5 than the f3.6 at 1:10.4 and the 35-80 at 1:8.6.
Outside of flash use, I use the Tamron SP Asp 35-105/2.8. It is the same
length and weight as the 35-80/2.8 and has more reach at the same speed.
I don't know which is the better lens in tests, but, as several members
can tell you, the Tamron is an excellent lens. And considerably cheaper
than the 35-80. Given my choice, I'll take a Zuiko, but where the
function is superior, I'll go elsewhere.
If reach and/or close focus is particularly important, the Kiron
35-135/3.5-4.5 is another contender.
Moose
Gordon J. Ross wrote:
Hi Julian:
Darn that enabling thing, now I have to ponder it, it is a good suggestion,
I realize that its twice the lens the 3.6 is. The downside is its bulky,
primarily the zoom would sit on the OM 4 w/winder 2 and a PB 2/T32 as I want
it for use mostly with flash, quite a big package altogether, my thinking
was that the 3.6 would keep the size and weight down, not sacrificing much
in quality at 1 up or down from F8
< 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 >
|