The 135/2.8 is not 2.5x as good as the 135/3.5, IMO. Here, you can pay
$50-70 for the f/3.5 and $90-120 for a typical f2.8. I sold my f3.5 lens
because I didnt' find the size differential that objectionable and I liked
the additional 1/2 stop that I got with the f2.8. It uses 55mm filters
though, which put some people off.
The f3.5 is a nice lens, and I'd get one for that price.
Whether you want and 85/100 in addition is your choice. They're quite
different lenses from the 135's in perspective.
Skip
Original Message:
-----------------
From: davidt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (David Thatcher)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:45:00 +0930 (CST)
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] zuiko 135mm 2.8 or 3.5?
I want to replace my very average 'Zelar' 135/2.8 prime.
I can get a 135/3.5 zuiko for around AUD100 locally or a 135/2.8 for
around the AUD250 mark.
I suppose my question is: is the f2.8 more than double the lens of the
f3.5, from a user perspective? It will some use as a portrait lens
mainly...
would the 100 or the 85 be lots better (I did see the discussion on the
85/2!), though these are LOTS more expensive (AUD400 for the 100/3.5)
TIA,
davidt
Adelaide, South Australia
< 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 >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.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 >
|