Hi Andy:
> >My main interests in photography are people, and to a lesser extent,
> >landscapes. For the first, my main lens is a Zuiko 135/f2.8, but I'm
> >considering buying a 100/f2 as a portrait lens, expensive and thin on
> >the ground as they are here in Sydney. Does anyone have an opinion
> >(silly question, I know) as to whether it's worth the hard-earned? The
> >f2 focusses to 0.7 metres, which would be great for full frame face
> >shots.
> >
> >If that's not where my money goes, I'll get a 28/f2 or 2.8 to replace my
> >just barely acceptable T*mr*n 28-70 zoom instead, which I only use for
> >wide angles.
I generally recommend the lowest cost Zuikos first. If you have a 50 mm
normal, I'd go with the 85mm f/1.8 It has close focus correction and doesn't
represent overkill the way a 90 mm f/2.0 would (way pay for macro capability
in a portrait lens?). Then I'd take the savings and get the 28 mm f/2.8 You
get better stopped down performance from slower wide angles (i.e., at
diffraction limited aperatures, like f/16, the slower the maximum aperture the
higher the performance at small aperatures).
If they don't prove satisfactory, trade it for the faster lenses. Do you
really want to be carrying all that weight in landscape work?
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|