Concerning the 135 focal length, I've used two: An Owen Automatic 135 f/2.8,
and a Zuiko 135 f/3.5. I have not used the Zuiko 135 f/2.8, but it does have a
better reputation for bokeh. I think that a large part of that is because it
opens up wider, although I have no direct proof. What I do have proof of is
this: surprisingly, Zuiko is sharper than the Owen. Surprising because at the
time, the zuiko was full of fungus. It's even better, now that Photosphere has
cleaned it.
Steve Goss, Dallas Tx usa
Mike Lazzari wrote:
>
> > I carry around the little respected 135/3.5 and 200/5
> > even though I have the bigger Zuiko brothers,
>
> Is this lack of respect due to the ubiquitous nature of the 135/3.5 and
> the plethora of big brothers and sisters in the range of the 200/5 or is
> it due to mediocrity? Personally i find satisfaction carrying in the
> "palm of my hand" what others have to hire a porter to haul around.
> Well, maybe that's over stating a bit but you get the idea :)
>
> So for example, should I avoid the 100~200 because it is so cheap or is
> it a decent lens but cheap because a lot of them are out there? I
> suspect that this is the case with the 75~150, the 135/3.5 and the
> 28/3.5. It seems to me that a dog or two might slip into any line even
> Olympus. Comments?
>
> Mike
>
> < 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 >
|