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
It is interesting to see the variation in cost and content of a basic
camera and 3 lens kit. Sort of a low budget-high budget comparison
for someone just getting started on the cruel road to zuikoholism. My
nominations:
Low: OM1N, 28/2.8, 50/3.5, 100/2.8.
High: OM4Ti, 24/2, 35-80/2.8, 135/2.8 Oops, no macro, but a little
wider range.
What do you think? Should the basic kit include an additional lens and a flash?
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
?
< 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 >
|