Upload & Sell: Off
Zeiss 21 if it didn't have mustache distortion, weigh a ton and cost a mint.
Leica 19 if it didn't cost twice a mint
Oly 21/3.5 ... well corrected for distortion, good corners, lightweight and cost friendly. Don't let the lower contrast fool you into thinking it doesn't have good resolution.
Imo, Oly 21/2 ... pass unless you are in dire need of f2, which in today's realm, I don't see the need. I think using the Oly 21/2 is a poor representation of the Oly 21/3.5. BTW, the Oly 18/3.5 is an option as well, following Paul's mention of cropping to 20/21.
Most comments I've read (and I've looked extensively), prefer the OM21/2 as sharper than the 21/3.5,(both multicoated), but as I haven't compared them, I can't state a personal opinion.
I've also read that the 21/3.5 has an even shallower depth of focus than the 21/2, which I already find a bit limited in this areas, so for my style of photography that's another mark against it.
I do like the size and heft of the OM21/2 and it's sharp enough at F2 to be easy to focus.
I also know from having the OM24/2.8 for a short time, that the OM21/3.5 would be too small for me for the reasons I stated earlier.
EDIT: After the next sequence showing the OM21/2 to be the best of the three at close distances, I wonder if the 21/2 is corrected more for close focus (having that floating group of elements suggests this may be so) and the 21/3.5 more for distance?
Edited on Oct 03, 2012 at 07:27 AM · View previous versions