The discussion about which of these two lenses is 'better' for one or
another type of photography comes up pretty often. Ther are adherents to
both as well as a contingent who say you really need both.
Absent the specifics of your problem, I would simply ask which range on
teh zoom gets the most use for you and suggest getting the one closest
to that. Or if money is a big object, I'd suggest the 100/2.8.
However, if I understand your problem correctly, it is not that the zoom
was too slow for the flash power, but the viewfinder was to dim for
focusing. If that is the case, the 85/2 will certainly be a bigger help
with brightness. The other thing that helps brightness a lot is the 2
series screens. The problem is that they throw off the exposure
indication in the viewfinder of the 2(n). TTL exposures aren't affected,
but the viewfinder needle will indicate an exposure about 2/3 stop lower
than the camera will actually use (because it reads off the brighter
screen). It also doesn't make any difference for any flash, TTL, auto or
calculated from GNs. It can, of course, be adjusted by a repair person,
but that adds to the cost. If the camera is due for a CLA anytime soon,
the meter adjustment wouldn't cost any extra, as they adjust the meter
anyway. Some people just leave it as is, adjust mentally in Auto mode,
and use the exposure comp dial in Manual mode (useing exp. comp. in Auto
WILL throw the exposure off). 2 series have a wider tab than 1 series so
they won't be accidently mounted in 1(n) or 2(n) bodies. Judicious use
of a small file can adjust them to fit. I believe John H. will install
the 2 series screen at no extra charge if bought with a CLA, but you'd
need to check with him.
An 85/2 with a 2 series screen would be noticeably brighter than the
50/1.8 with the 1 series screen. If you are thinking about doing
close-up or macro photography, the built-in CU compensation in the 85/2
should give better results.
If you are patient, you should be able to find both lenses at
significantly lower prices than you mention.
Moose
Craig Cunningham wrote:
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 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.
< 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 >
|