On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Olaf Greve wrote:
> 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.
Hi Olaf - and Scott,
I'll ramble a bit too. Considering that I'm on the morning after a
working-through-the-night-because-we-have-a-deadline, it'll probably be
rambelling....
<SNIP>
> 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.
I have to confess to be almost contrary to you. I find that the 100/2 is,
indeed, a nice lens - but not used even close to as much as it deserves
due to the existance of the 85/2.0 and 100/2.8. Those two have the almost
exact same physical dimensions, and I find that they are both lighter
(ovbiously) and more compact - the compactness also making it less
"intrusive" / "scary" when doing portraits.
I have - again, strictly subjectively - been hard pressed to see any
difference between my results from the 100/2.0 and 100/2.8. I've been very
happy with both, and given the choise over, I think I'd save the money
from the 100/2.0 and buy more film ;)
My prefered lens is, actually, the 85/2.0, which works better - also
because I often do my portraits in rather tight conditions. If I do
outdoors, I do sometimes consider 85mm to be to short, and I have recently
found myself considering if not 135mm would be "right".
So I guess that should I pick, I'd go with the 135mm and the 85mm, not
buying any of the 100mm's. But I'd also like to say, that I've been doing
splendid (well....at least it wasn't the lens' fault if they
weren't) portraits with all the lenses in question. And I - honestly -
think that it is mostly a matter of habit.
--thomas
< 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 >
|