Hi Scott,
Some ramblings of mine follow down below. Please notice that this post is
rather subjective, but it may be of some use to you.
> 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?
First off: I have never used the 85/2 nor the 100/2.8, so I can't comment on
these two lenses. However, I do have the 135/2.8 at my disposition, and I
own the 100/2.
The 135/2.8 is definitely a fine lens with excellent results, however, I
have hardly ever used it since getting the 100/2. For me, the 100/2 is about
the perfect lens. Whenever I do portrait work I do not even think about
using other lenses than the 100/2 (well, for "full body portraits" at times
I use the 35-80/2.8). Really, the 100/2 is a dream come true, the bokeh is
just soooo smooth and the lens performs really well at all apertures, even
the wide open one and f2.8 (I prefer to shoot between f2 and f4). In fact, I
like this lens so much, that it is my very favourite Zuiko, and it gets used
about equally often as the 35-80/2.8. An additional advantage of the 100/2
over the 135/2.8 is of course the fact that the former is one stop faster;
something I often make use of.
> 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?
Yes, the bokeh aspect has been mentioned, but apart from that, the 100/2
focusses close enough to give a 5:1 magnification ratio (i.e. 0.2x life
size), and when put on an extension tube, I think the performance of the
100/2 is about as good as the performance of the 90/2 for close up work.
> 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).
Well, I hope I can help you in that respect at least. I would definitely say
that if you want to add something next to the 135/2.8, that at most it has
to be only one lens (yes, yes, I now this is NOT a Zuikoholic answer :) ).
IMO, there really is no need to own an 85/2 and a 100/2 and a 100/2.8,
either of these three should do fine. Things to consider:
-85/2: Somewhat shorter than 100mm (which you may or may not like), F2.
-100/2.8: Probably the most inexpensive of the three, lightweight, nice
focal length, but F2.8.
-100/2: The best of the three, but also the most expensive and heaviest of
them, F2 (with really good results at that aperture and at f2.8!), great for
close-up work.
If money is not too much of an issue, I would go for the 100/2 (you may even
find yourself selling the 135/2.8 afterwards), otherwise I think I would go
for the 85/2. Consider that F2 vs. F2.8 factor, for me this is of high
importance as I often shoot in low light situations without a flash on 100
ASA film.
Cheers!
Olafo
< 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 >
|