XC 35 f/2

CAcreeks wrote:

ISQ1993 wrote:

Haha you're right, people are super snobby about things like 'lack of aperture ring'. It's like, yes, I prefer to have an aperture ring, but the fact of the matter is that if the XC35 f2 entices more people to use the system and gets people out shooting, I really don't see an issue. I for one am certainly going to get one for that price!

I'm curious, what is the advantage of an aperture ring?

I have owned lenses with aperture ring, but prefer using the Program Shift dial (as Pentax called it) to adjust both shutter speed one way, and aperture the other.

There are always different ways of setting exposure, and program shift is a good example. For most shooting, I prefer the aperture ring as it creates a simple system of three controls - aperture, ISO, and shutter speed. They are all clearly and permanently marked and can be set to a value or auto. There is no need to remember a litany of modes that for the most part are just permutations of differing auto/manual settings of these three functions.

Seems like it would be difficult to reach the aperture ring when you're looking thru the viewfinder.

Aperture rings were standard for a lot of years. SLRs had an angled mirror over the top of the aperture ring that would make the value visible in the viewfinder. It feels pretty natural once you get the hang of it. After all, aperture is a lens function, just like zooming and focusing. It makes sense to put the task on the left hand.

OIS on/off would be a much more valuable thing to have on the lens. The new 16-80/4 has an aperture ring, but not an OIS switch.

The desirability of one over the other is ultimately personal preference.