You forgot to mention the extra stop that the 85/2 has. That comes in
handy inside at times. I'm not sure of the look of the two lenses at f/2
vs f/2.8 WRT boheh, etc; I sold my 100/2.8 because I didn't use it enough.
I noticed that nobody mentioned the 135/2.8, one of my true favorites of
the Zuiko line. Having the 85/2 and the 135/2.8 was what made the 100/2.8
superfluous for me.
Oh, and I had the 135/3.5 for a while and it wasn't THAT much smaller or
ligher than the 135/2.8, and you lost 1/2 stop, AND I didn't like the
photos from it as much as the 135/2.8, so it went away too. The
disadvantage with the f2.8 is it uses 55mm filters.
Skip
Original Message:
-----------------
From: AG Schnozz agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 06:24:40 -0800 (PST)
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Zuiko MC 100/2.8 vs. Zuiko 135/3.5
The 100/2.8 has much better bokeh than the 135/3.5. When
seeking that 3D look, the 100/2.8 has it.
Now, compare the 100/2.8 to the 85/2, I'd say that both are
pretty close. Other than the extra reach that those 15mm get
you, the two lenses are nearly identical.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.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 >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 >
|