Joel
Do you mean that the 2.8 is actually lighter ie physically I need this for
medical work what do you think?
Lou
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Joel Wilcox
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 1999 4:10 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [OM] new user
Lou,
If you consider 100mm the ideal length for portraits, the 100/f2 would
generally be considered superior. The lightness of the 100/f2.8 surely has
advantages, depending on how you shoot, and it is highly esteemed by many
Zuiks.
I like the 85/f2 for portraits. Some people also use the 90/f2 macro for
portraits. None of the alternatives for $149 however. :-(
Joel Wilcox
Iowa City, Iowa USA
At 01:23 PM 11/20/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear all,
>How is a 100mm F2.8 used zuico for $149 USD and is this my best choice for
>portraits?
>Lou
>
>
>
>< 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
< 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 >
|