I've got both the 135/2.8 and 135/3.5. I prefer the 2.8 personally,
however only for the reason of the brighter viewfinder that I get. From
what my strictly subjective eyes tell me, both lenses perform well in the
situations I've used them. I've not taken "comparative" shots with both.
The 135/3.5 may be a bit tad softer than the 2.8. Depending on point of
view and choise of subject, this may be a good or a bad thing...
--thomas
On Sun, 12 May 2002, 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 >
>
--
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|