<<My response was relative to the initial question regarding the 90 macro's
usefulness as a portrait lens, for which I have only positive comments. I
do have the 85mm f/2 but <sigh> no 100mm. The next lens in my bag is the
now discontinued 135mm f/2.8 which also has its place.>>
I have an old Tamron 135mm f2.8 and it is the only non OM piece
left in my OM system.
This lens is incredibly sharp and well built. (a little too sharp for
portraits)
Having never seen a Zuiko 135 f2.8, I was wondering how big it is.
The Tamron is a 55mm filter size, what about the zuiko?
The Tamron is about 3 1/4 inches long at infinity.
It seems huge next to my 100mm f2.8 Zuiko.
It is about twice as heavy as the Zuiko 100mm.
The only other thing I can compare is the built in lens shade on the Tamron.
Does the Zuiko have this?
BTW, I bought this lens used, in the early seventies and it has no oil on
the blades
(that I can see) and no paint specks inside.
Are the paint specks a uniquely Zuiko problem?
The 100mm is just as clean and probably just as old. paid $50 for each,
many years apart.
Charlie (reminiscing things Oly) Loeven
cpl49@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|