Just a question: what do you people see as the main difference between the
100/2.0 and 100/2.8? All my - strictly unscientific - comparisons show
that they're mostly equal, save for the size (and the brightness).
Was just wondering if two of them in a kit was redundant...
--thomas
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Oben,
>
> How funny. Olaf & I have been discussing this very thing. A month or so
> ago I sold my 100/2 while trying to pare down my obsession/collection with
> the logic that, since I had the 90/2 and it provided macro capability and
> almost the same focal length. Big mistake. There's an indescribable
> *something* (Olaf calls it "magic") about the 100/2 that the 90/2 somehow
> doesn't have -- I can't say that it's any particular thing -- but I sorely
> miss the 100/2 and am now looking for another one.
>
> I'd grab it if I were you. It's an amazing lens.
>
> Dave
>
> >
> >Hi everyone,
> >
> >I have the opportunity to buy a 100mm f2 at a good price.
> >
> >My question is... I already have the 90mm f2 macro and the 100mm f2.8
> >(which I will sell eventually). Apart from the joy of having such a huge
> >front element is there any other justification to buy this lens
> >when I have
> >the 90mm f2 already?
> >
> >Any advice appreciated...
> >
> >Oben
>
>
> < 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 >
>
--
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|