Good stuff, thanks for sharing. For an even smaller package, the 21/3.5 is
tiny compared to the 21/2. Of course the 21/2 is better, optically...
There's no Nikon 20/21mm that competes, even the modern ones. The only/best
option in the wide range that might stand a chance, from Nikon, would be
their 14-24 zoom. But it's huge and pricey.
-Ed
On 12/13/11 6:16 AM, "olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> No, the Nikon F hasn't convinced me to get rid of my OM goodies... I
> would like to try a good Nikon 20/21mm to see how it compares to the
> OM 21/2. It won't be small like a rangefinder though... (the OM-3Ti +
> 21mm is just ridiculously small and soooo good to hold and use, for
> what it is)
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|