Hi Thomas (and others),
> 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....
No worries, your ideas were clear enough :)
> 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 think that the list is a bit divided into those that prefer lighter slower
lenses and those that prefer the heavier faster ones. I definitely fall into
the latter category, but I too have my limit. I think the heaviest lens
which I care to use handheld is the 65-200/4, which I believe weighs some
730 grams or so. Anything above that, and you'd have to use a tripod for
comfortable use, and tripods are definitely NOT the kind of things I want to
carry around very often. So, where both the 35-80/2.8 and the 100/2 are
concerned I find their weight (and size) to be acceptable, and I really love
how fast they are. OTOH, I can perfectly well understand "the other camp" as
well, for of course it's nice to have light and small lenses (just compare
e.g. the 35-80/2.8 with the 35-70/3.5-4.5). Either way: I think it's pretty
safe to conclude that the majority of the "lightweight camp" would prefer
the 85/2 or the 100/2.8 over the 100/2, whereas the "fast camp" would
probably be inclined to the opposite opinion.
> 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 ;)
Well, that's definitely a very fair remark. You'd probably have to use a
microscope (or other high magnification means) to really see (big?)
differences between the quality of the pictures, I think. Therefore, 100/2
vs 100/2.8 sharpness for me wasn't so much the issue. When I bought the
100/2, I was actually looking for a decently priced 85/2, thinking that the
100/2 would be way out of my league. I got lucky though and encountered a
mint- 100/2 for a pretty low price (though not as low as Mark's 100/2).
Initially this lens was to serve as a trade against a 500/8, but that deal
fortunately enough fell through, and I then had the choice to either sell
the 100/2 and buy an 85/2, or to just keep the 100/2. After having used it,
and after quickly having fallen in love with it, I decided to keep it: a
decision upon which so far I have never looked back. Still, the cost of the
gear for me is becoming a big issue as well, so if I would have to choose
now between buying a normally priced 85/2 or a normally priced 100/2, I
would probably go for the former (I don't think I would quickly buy the
100/2.8 though, due to the F2.8 vs. the F2 aperture).
> 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".
I found 135mm to be a bit on the long side. 100mm works just fine for me,
and when in tight conditions, I use the 35-80/2.8 at 80mm for the portrait
work.
> So I guess that should I pick, I'd go with the 135mm and the 85mm, not
> buying any of the 100mm's.
I think that's a very valid and justifiable alternative to having a 100mm
lens.
> 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.
Yes. I found I like the 100mm focal length a lot, also, I like fast lenses,
so the 100/2 is about perfect for me. For the opposite reasons, I can also
understand very well that you're happier with an 85/2 + 135/2.8 combination.
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 >
|