At 16:00 7/30/02, 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?
Yes. 15mm shorter focal length and admits twice as much light. More
seriously it produces a perspective with depth that is only subtly
flattened compared to 100mm. Its speed makes it much easier to use in low
light. Lighter and smaller than the 100/2 it makes the rig more
agile. Used the 50mm, 35-105mm at the long end, 85mm and 135mm when
shooting the performers at the monthly blues jams. Settled on the 85mm as
the favorite. The 135mm could get in very tight but proved to be harder to
hand hold at lower shutter speeds. It's difficult enough with a very
shallow depth of field (about six inches maximum) running lenses at f/2 and
f/2.8 without adding camera shake to the mix.
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?
Undoubtedly. Your 100/2.8 would suffer great insecurity next to a lens
that's twice as bright. OTOH, it could produce the fodder for another saga
similar to the legendary tales about Toky and Vert! Would be much more
interesting than Ozzie's family.
Will it automatically clean up the table after dinner?
No, but you can threaten the 100/2.8 with complete abandonment if it
doesn't start pitching in.
-- John
< 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 >
|