on 1/4/02 6:09 PM, Scott Gomez at scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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?
>
> Let's look at it from a practical standpoint--like that'll ever happen :-)
> --not from the Zuikoholic standpoint. I already know the answer from the
> Zuikoholic position quite well on my own (and that's what I'm trying to
> fight off--or at least justify--at the moment).
>
> ---
> Scott Gomez
>
Scott -- Consider the 85/2.0 for portrait work... its a good focal length. I
think 135 compresses the face too much ('flattens' the perspective). The 85
is probably less expensive than a 100/2.0, though more than the 100/2.8, but
it is a small, handy lens with the speed to be useful in a lot of
situations.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|