Ah, a fun topic. I have the 135 f/3.5 and the 100mm f/2.8 and love making
hand-held, available-light shots of musicians and listeners using window
light on fast film. Last summer I shot 8 rolls during a marathon music
festival in a church. I metered with the OM-2 and transfered the settings
to use on my (meterless, meaning dead meter) OM-1 (pre MD, pre "n").
Naturally, I found the 100 more useful when I was closer, as with people I
knew well, and the 135 for candids from a distance of people I didn't know
well.
For a short while, I had one camera hanging on a short neck strap with the
100 and the other camera hanging from a longer strap w/ the 135. Neither
one of these lenses is expensive, (especially if you have friends on the Oly
List!) I have found that both are sharp enough for me to use wide open, and
I wouldn't say that about my old (ex) Tamron 85 - 210 f/4.5 (or so) circa
1973.
The 100mm f/2.8 is the sharpest lens I've ever used. I'm just giving my
experience, not bragging.
(In addition to the others already mentioned, my experience is limited to
these Zuikos: 50 /f3.5 macro, the 28 /3.5, the 28 /f2, and 200 /f4. Oh, and
a Tokina 400 /5.6 SD.)
In short, I'm saying that, at a close working distance, let's say a
*conversational* distance, the 100mm range is perfect. I can't afford the
(sharper) 90 macro but the 100 f/2.8 is sweet and sharp. Yeah, it's pretty
darn close to the 135 but having flexiblity in this portrait range
complements the stuff I love to shoot. I don't lust after a circular
fisheye but I like having affordable flexibility when it complements what I
love to do.
Still looking to buy a 2-4 screen,
Lama in Northern Kentucky
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Gomez
> Subject: [OM] 100/2.8 vs 100/2 vs 135/2.8
> Well, as usual, I'm on the horns of a dilemma. I've been thinking of doing
> some "portrait" work. Nothing fancy, and certainly nothing professional.
> Just some better shots of family.
>
> There've been discussions here regarding the various 100mm
> Zuikos. I already
> own a 135/2.8 Zuiko. So...
>
> What's everyone's opinion? Is it worthwhile investing in either
> of the 100s
> (and which one) for this type of shooting when I already have the 135? Is
> there a good reason to own either of the 100s *other* than
> portraiture when
> I already have the 135? Better bokeh with the 100 or something
> else I may be
> unaware of?
< 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 >
|