On Mon, 10 May 1999, Giles wrote:
>If it were me I would seek them in the following order of preference - leaving
>out
>the 90mm f2:
>100mm f2
>85mm f2
>100mm f2.8
>I think it would also be worth considering the 135mm f2.8 as well as the
>100mm f2.8.
The 135 is a bit on the long side. I will also use the lens as a
short tele in addition to portraiture. If I can't completely fill the
subject in the frame with an 85 or 100, I can crop and print it slightly
enlarged; can't do anything of the sort if subject is going off the sides
of the frame on the 135. So, I am leaning to the 85/2, still.
>I very recently saw a supposedly ex+ 100mm f2 for slightly less than $400
>which seems like a good price.
CRICKEY! It may be a good price, and I'm sure the glass warrants
it, but I'd rather stay on the lower side, like ~$250 max. I can always
upgrade my glass later; although I can afford even the 90/2 at the moment,
it would not be prudent of me as a student to do so.
>The 100mm f2 has an ED element and close focus aberration correction mechanism
>which
>reduces distortion when you focus on something very close. It focuses to only
>700mm and weighs slightly more than twice as much as the f2.8. The 85mm f2
>focuses to 850mm and also has a close focus aberration correction mechanism.
>The
>100mm f2.8 focuses to only 1m and has no correction mechanism.
CRC is not a concern, as I have the 50/3.5 for any close-up work I
should want.
>The 100mm f2 is one of the finest of all Zuikos. Have a look at Gary Reeses'
>test
>results for it and the other lenses you are considering.
Did look at the page, and even more in favor of 85/2 over the
100/2.8. 100/2 is a bit steep pricewise.
>If you are on a very tight budget the 135mm f2.8 provides very good
>performance for
>the money - usually less than $100.
Well, I've looked at a 135/2.8 my supervisor has (pentax k-mount,
not Oly), and it's a bit too long for my taste. It may be great as a short
tele, but I will use it mainly as a portrait lens.
>Let me know if you want the URL for the 100mm f2.
>Giles
Erm, no thanks <G> Like I said, a bit pricey at the moment...see
last line below ;-)
>Acer Victoria wrote:
>
>> As much as I would want the 90/2, it would not be prudent of me to
>> buy it. And I didn't know a 100/2 existed...certainly going to be $$$ over
>> either the 100/2.8 and 85/2, no? Soliciting advice,
>> Siddiq, the new Zuikoholic (only one lens or tripod away from $1k less!)
>> :-0
>
>< 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 >
>
>
--
<humming intro riff to Straits' /Money For Nothing ... />
< 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 >
|