Hi Mark,
My thoughts too. The f/2 focuses closer, and has special low-dispersion
glass and extraordinary partial dispersion glass in the front groups ( to quote
from "The Design concept behind the Zuiko Interchangeable lens system".
For those into bokeh, the f/2 is excellent.
I have found this lens a real challenge to get out of it what it should deliver
based on the specifications. I'm still not sure I understand it. Watch out for
focussing past infinity, and diaphragm / mirror / shutter vibrations upsetting
sharpness ( and probably contrast too). Mine seems to have a very strong
aperture return spring which I suspect of adding to vibration. . I'm interested
to hear what you feel about the strength of yours.
Some of my shots using it can be seen at the URL below.
http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/photography/zuikoholics/recent.htm
Brian
> the 100/2 is not a replacement for the 100/2.8, since it is about 3 times
> the size. This is one serious chunk of glass! I was originally thinking
> that I could sell the 100/2.8 if I got the 100/2 (yeah, right!), but now
> I'm pretty sure that I really wouldn't want to. The 100/2.8 is so
> perfect for backpacking, since it's so small and light, that I really
> couldn't justify lugging around the extra weight of the 100/2. Anyway, I
> was wondering how others used this lens? When do you feel it's worth
> carrying the extra bulk for that additional stop? I must admit that I
> already like the f/2 a lot, with all that glass and all those aperture
> blades, and I'm really looking forward to trying it out.
< 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 >
|