Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of timballic's message #11011203 « 20/21mm on FF..........yet again! »

  

timballic
Online
Upload & Sell: Off
20/21mm on FF..........yet again!


RustyBug wrote:
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 (with the floating group of elements) and the 21/3.5 more for distance?



Oct 03, 2012 at 07:26 AM
timballic
Online
Upload & Sell: Off
20/21mm on FF..........yet again!


RustyBug wrote:
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.



Oct 02, 2012 at 09:54 PM



  Previous versions of timballic's message #11011203 « 20/21mm on FF..........yet again! »