- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Prunskunas" <pyotr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 3:27 PM
Subject: [OM] 135mm f3.5 better than tests show?
> 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?
I was very happy with mine, only selling it to buy the 2.8 version, the
extra half stop making it easier to focus for me, no dimming of the
microprisms. However, my eyesight is failing with age, and I'm moving
toward faster lenses. Quality wise I can't see much difference between
them, I thought the contrast of the 3.5 was very good, making very "punchy"
images, plus the 3.5 is smaller and lighter. Also mine was in great
condition, and only cost GBP25, as against the GBP99 for the 2.8. I do like
the 2.8 though, already having used it a lot, and it's a very nice
silvernose!
Andy Gilbert
Exeter
Devon
England
< 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 >
|