I decided to upgrade my camera and sold the 5D for a 5D mk II.
I do not need both an 18 and a 24 so one has to go.
The use for the WA is almost only landscape photos.
Zuiko 18/3.5
Pros:
Small
Light
Great build
Sharp
Vignetting at large apertures
Wiiiide!!!
Very low distortion
Cons
Vulnerable front element
Hard to use CPL
Vignetting?
Not so great bokeh
Rokkor 24 VFC
Pros
Sharp
Great build
Very low vignetting
Variable field curvature
Better bokeh than the 18
Light
Faster than the 18
Cool to have a super rare lens...
Cons
None so far.
So which would you keep? I am leaning towards the 18 since I like wide but the 24 is so nice and only one of a few that is converted for EOS.
Why not both? There is a big difference between 18 & 24 and surely there are times when one is more suited to the subject than the other?
24mm is also a very good focal length for stitched pano landscapes, it provides just the right vertical FOV for natural looking panoramas IMO.... that's if you are interested in stitched panos of course.
Anden, which focal length do you prefer? I'd keep the lens I use more often, if one of them definitely has to go. For me personally, that's 18mm, but everyone's different. And as neither lens acts as a replacement for the other, it's difficult to know what to recommend. If you're thinking in terms of rarity, then sell the 18mm. It doesn't come up that often, but I've *never* seen that Rocker. I would also consider things like condition and how good a copy it is optically.
Well if the 18 has to go be ready for the stampede at the door! I would personally lead the charge, but sadly I don't have any spare funds at the moment.
I'd keep which ever you feel most comfortable composing/shooting with. If you were to run down to the beach or your local "spot" and shoot the sunset now which lens would you grap if you could only take one?
I have a 19, 24 and 28 and if the 24 wasn't f/1.4 I would sell it. If I could only have one it would probably be the 19.
Personally, I'd keep both in your case Sell your bike/guitar/kidney before selling exotic glass!
thrice wrote:
I'd keep which ever you feel most comfortable composing/shooting with. If you were to run down to the beach or your local "spot" and shoot the sunset now which lens would you grap if you could only take one?
I have a 19, 24 and 28 and if the 24 wasn't f/1.4 I would sell it. If I could only have one it would probably be the 19.
Personally, I'd keep both in your case Sell your bike/guitar/kidney before selling exotic glass!
One kidney for sale! Any takers? Fine Swedish meat.
Haha. There is such a big difference between the two... However there are tons of 24mms on the market, and only - one (+) 18mm. If you get any kind of wide zoom they usually start at 24mm. I would keep the 18. Also it is super rare and you got a good deal on it.
Well, for me, it depends on the focal length you would want/need and what other lenses you have. Having a 28mm already, I would let the 24 go and keep the 18mm. On the other hand, if you don't need to go that wide, sell the 18mm. Unfortunately I am out of cash right now, otherwise I would have give the opposite advice
I'd keep both if possible. the VFC, while unique, is not as hard to come by as a nice OM 18. The really difficult part is the conversion of the VFC to EOS, that's where the value is on that lens. One can find VFC lenses cheaper than the OM 18, and more often, IMO.
You *could* sell the VFC and get a zuiko 24 to fill the gap for if/when you really need that FL for a shot... And of course for hiking etc the zuiko 18 and 24 as a pair are probably as big as the vfc on its own.
I don't recall you posting many of the 24mm shots, but you have posted a bunch of your 18mm shots and been pretty happy with them. Unless you just go in phases, it seems like (From the standpoint of your posts on this forum) the 18mm is worth more to you right now in terms of enjoyment of use.
If this post bothers you, then maybe it is the other way around and you really want to keep the 24mm.
At any rate, I vote for finding a way to keep both!