Schnozz,
I dunno, but I'm glad you asked the question, because I've wondered the
same thing. My observation is that the 100 f/2.8 can be purchased for
less $$ than the 85, for comparable quality.
Perhaps someone like Tom Scales could tell us why we NEED both lenses...
Bill Stanke
AG Schnozz wrote:
>
> Inquiring minds want to know...
>
> Is the 85/2 substantially different from my 100/2.8? Should I
> just keep my nose in my own camera bag and leave it to the
> "ain't missed what I never had" category?
>
> I love the Bokeh (I know, it only exists in our minds) and
> sharpness of the 100/2.8 and am thinking, based on my limited
> exposure to the 85/2, that it is just a slightly wider version
> of what I already own.
>
> Would my 100/2.8 be threatened by the presence of the 85/2?
> Would it require that the lens go on Pros*c because of the
> depression of being replaced?
>
> Why was the 85/2 twice as expensive as the 100/2.8 back in 1978?
>
> Will it automatically clean up the table after dinner?
>
> AG-Digging a pit-Schnozz
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.yahoo.com
>
> < 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 >
< 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 >
|