The now-unfashionable 135mm lens remains one of my favorites. I find that
most folks appear to feel a bit like I'm invading their personal space when
I use the shorter teles. Experienced models would be another matter. But I
still believe the 135mm is best for nice portraits of plain folks. Much
farther - like with a 200mm - and they begin to get a rather detached look,
indicating I'm too far away. There's a good reason why the 135 was an
industry standard for a long time.
Twenty bucks sounds about right for a Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 in excellent
condition (whatever that means nowadays - let's just call it good clean
glass and no more than a few scuffs or cosmetic scratches on the outer
barrel). Only the Vivitar close focusing version (I think it goes to 1:2)
might fetch a few more bucks from a knowledgeable seller.
I paid $15 for a Lentar preset 135mm f/3.5. It's the sturdiest preset I've
ever seen, tho' a bit larger than most presets. The bokeh - how it renders
out of focus backgrounds - is absolutely lovely. It is sharp without being
cruel, making it the perfect portrait lens. Only the longish 6.5' minimum
focusing distance compromises it somewhat. That's common with most 135mm
lenses, tho'.
Considering the relatively low prices of Zuiko 135mm lenses, why not go for
one of those? You'll probably appreciate the smaller size and weight. And
if your main anticipated use is people pix, I'd actually recommend a single
coated lens over a "superior" multicoated version. The very slight loss of
contrast sometimes associated with single coated lenses can actually be an
asset when photographing people. Just keep an eye on stray light sources
and use a lens hood.
Lex
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
< 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 >
|