Hi Andrew,
I have an E3 and have just got a late serial number 50mm 1.4 and MF-1... I'd
love to see some of your photos using the 50mm 1.4 with a digital body to
compare with my very unsharp photos.
2. Yes, it's really good. If you can't quite afford it the 14-54mm at
around half the price is excellent. You might like to check the new
comparisons of the 12-60mm with the 14-42mm on dpreview -
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0804/08040703olympus1442review.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0804/08040704olympus1260review.asp
3. They're primes so probably - I love the 50/1.4 on digital and have
my eye out for bargain 100/2.8 and 200/4 which some here love so
much. The 21mm f3.5 has a good reputation on Canon and some have
reported that the slower versions perform better than the expensive
f2 versions on various bodies. But none of them are going to give you
a wide enough perspective for landscape (you'd need the excellent
18/3.5 to get a modest 36mm perspective!)
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 15/04/2008, at 9:07 AM, Bob_Benson@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 2. Will I see a significant difference between the 12-60 and the
> 510 kit
> lens ? That is, would you put the 12-60 on the 510?
>
> 3. Will I see a significant difference between the high-end Zuikos
> (the
> 100 f2, 35 f2, 50 MIJ, 21 f2) mounted on the E-3/510 compared to
> the
> 12-60? (Since I'm landscape oriented, the autofocus is not a
> real big
> deal for me.)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|