Performance is fine. I found both mine (I have owned two over the years)
to be very good, higher contrast, and sharper than the 75-150 zoom,
which I have always been happy with. I eventually replaced it with a
2.8, not because of a perceived quality, but because I wanted a faster
lens for low light shooting. The 135 f/3.5 is a light compact lens that
would work very well for architectural details and such.
Jim Couch
Pete Prunskunas wrote:
> Gary's tests show the 135mm f3.5 to be a solid 'B' performer.
> How does the lens react in the real world? Searching the archives
> gave me some comments about how it made a good portrait lens
> because it made 40+ year old women look good. That sounds
> like the lens isn't crystal sharp. Does anyone use it to shoot
> buildings, especially interesting European city buildings? How
> does it perform outside of the lab?
>
> Pete
< 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 >
|