Hi,
Nice gallery!
The 24/2.8 is a tiny gem. I never leave it home and it hardly takes up
any space. It holds it's own on FF digital with the big boys. The
21/3.5 is a relative deal---if you seek out its rating on the 16-9 site
it almost is as nice as the 21/2---the latter has the floating element
and does do a bit better close up. Perhaps the price has fallen as
Canyon has some new somewhat improved wide offerings. Oh, here is the
data on the 24/2.8.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/final/24mm_final1.html
Here is some general performance data---there are always list members
that will know any intricate details on the Zuikos.
(quantum mechanics, philosophy or curries for that matter)
Just in case you have not seen it.
http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
Mike
Tell me, is the f/2.0 much inferiour to, say, the 2.8 or 3.5
in terms
of bright-light, stopped-down photography? I understand it has
pronounced distortion,
but apart form that (and bigger physical size) am I compromising on
too much?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|