Not in any obvious way. But that could be my lack of a sufficiently
discerning eye, more than anything else. I believe (without checking right
now) that my 135/2.8 is MC, vs. the 135/3.5 being SC. I'd assume that makes
some difference. Frankly, however, most of the time the differences *in
practice* are very subtle, apparently, and are often lost on me. I'll have
to set up a side-by-side shooting test one of these days...
Gary's tests certainly show differences under controlled conditions that are
significant, IMO. I'd say that they're especially relevant for making
decisions about buying one version of a lens over another and increasing in
importance as the cost of the lens rises. If it's a choice between two
relatively expensive Zuikos, and you're only going to take a stab at owning
one or the other, then those tests are more valuable.
However, I wonder how much of that translates to real-world,
readily-discernable differences except in the most demanding shooting
conditions. I've owned the 135/3.5 for something like 20 years now and had
lots of nice photographs from it. Owning the faster version was mostly
serendipitous (it was part of a large kit purchase) and I haven't--so
far--been wowed with any huge difference.
Probably heresy, I know, but I'm not sure that the near-logarithmic increase
in the price of faster (and in some cases, newer and multicoated) glass is
worth it, unless and until that difference will be the crucial factor in
getting a shot on which your livelihood depends. Nonetheless, we all sure
like to own the fast, gorgeous glass if we can find a way to afford it. I
mean--after all--it's just really cool stuff!
Neither of these lenses is very expensive. It might be worthwhile getting an
example of each version and deciding which you like better based on what you
see in your own photography. It isn't like you won't find a market for the
one you choose not to keep.
---
Scott Gomez
-----Original Message-----
From: gries [mailto:gries@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Subject: RE: [OM] another philosophical question about the 135
Scott:
I see from G. Reese's lens tests that the 2.8 performs better than the
3.5 counterpart - have you noticed the difference?
< 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 >
|