John,
That is a stunning photo. The couple had to be quite pleased. It really
shows off your skill (and the nice OM equipment <g>).
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Dreamin' and buying
> At 23:37 12/29/00 , John Hudson wrote:
> >
> >I can not recall there being very much discussion about the 85/2 and am
> >wondering why this is the case. Gary Reese's lens test data gives the
> >85/2 good ratings and I find that 80 and 90mm focal lengths are a good
> >middle ground between normal and short telephoto lenses .... plus the f2
> >aperture is fast enough for low light photography.
> >
> >John Hudson
> >Vancouver, BC
>
> John,
> I grabbed one of these a while back and it is a wonderful "short"
> telephoto. When the 135/2.8 turned out to be too long from the back of a
> very short church at my cousin's wedding, I put this one on the OM-1n,
> stopped it down to f/2.8 and shot quite almost a half roll of film.
Worked
> out very well; one of them is posted here:
> http://johnlind.tripod.com/donnaruss/dr26.html
>
> I think you will really enjoy this lens; it's also a great one for tight,
> 1/3 portraits! The heuristic definition of a standard lens is focal
length
> equal to film frame diagonal, which is about 43mm for full-frame 35mm.
The
> heuristic of a classic portrait lens is focal length twice that of the
> standard lens, or about 86mm. I have little doubt the 85/2 was designed
> with its focal length just for that reason.
>
> -- John
>
>
> < 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 >
|