The 100/2.8 is a wonderful lens, but would not have solved your problem (in
my humble opinion). The difference between 3.5 and 2.8 is pretty small.
The difference all the way to f/2 is much larger.
Why the 85/2 is very expensive, it is a simply wonderful lens. I prefer it
to the 2.8, but mostly because it is smaller and faster. The 100/2.8 is
also excellent.
Thinking it through, though, with the dual T32 setup and the 100/2.8 you
would have probably been ok.
For $100..........go for it.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Cunningham" <craig.cunningham@xxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 7:00 PM
Subject: [OM] Portrait to short telephoto lens
I need some advice on a lens selection, please.
After reading John Lind's wonderful site on taking wedding photographs
(multiple times), I reluctantly agreed to be 'the photographer' for my
niece's
wedding on Feb. 1. Although this was my third wedding, it was the first one
I
was doing in the winter where everything was indoors.
I followed John's advice of taking my trusted 50mm f/1.8 with me, but had
delusions of taking most of the photos with my Zuiko 35-105 f/3.5-4.5. I was
in for a big surprise!
Being February (cold & dreary) in Minnesota doesn't make outdoor photos a
feasible proposition.
Being indoors in a dimly lit country club made me realize how important the
dual T-32's I had mounted on my Stroboframe Camera Flip bracket were, and
how
I would have been totally screw*d if I didn't have the 50mm f/1.8 with. I
couldn't focus on anything with the 35-105 zoom attached to my beloved
OM-2n.
It was a real eye opener (not to mention a test of the effectiveness of my
deodorant :-)
I did try some practice shots at the rehearsal, but the room that the actual
ceremony would take place in wasn't available for the rehearsal, so I went
into this pretty "blind."
Anyhow, I 'think' I did okay sticking with the 50mm, but I would have really
been much happier if I had a moderate telephoto in my fanny pack during the
ceremony.
I know that the 85mm f/2 is supposed to be great, but given my funds (or
lack
thereof), I'm wondering if anyone has tried using the 100mm f/2.8 for
similar
indoor work?
Looking around I can find a clean 85mm f/2 for $275 or so, while a
comparable
condition 100mm f/2.8 is $100 less.
I'm leaning towards the 100mm lens since my day-to-day outdoor lens is the
35-105 zoom, and I think the 100 (or 85) would be only used when indoors.
Comments? Experiences with the 100mm f/2.8?
Thanks,
Craig
< 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 >
|