>From what I've been told by those who have the 90/2, there is no comparison.
The 90/2 rules the world and is the cat's meow of all lenses. I've had the
pleasure of fondling one of these, but otherwise been denied any long-term
testing of the lens.
And NO, this is not a pleading for one. I'm actually quite happy with my
tiny (by comparison) 100/2.8, 50/3.5 macro and 35-80 lenses. I don't think
I could carry another mid-range lens!
Anyway, I have owned the 135/3.5 though. Wide-open it is a touch soft, but
two stops down and it's as good as anything else out there.
http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=265&Itemid=97
An argument could be made that the 135/3.5 is the longest lens you can
comfortably handhold due to the weight and balance of it on the OM system.
The lens is 50% "longer" than the 90mm, so it's actually in the realm of
being in another focal-length range. (80-110 is mild-telephoto, 135-200 is
moderately long telephoto, 250+ is extreme telephoto). The 135 and the 90
are night and day different lenses in handling and angle of view.
I really did like the 135/3.5 from a size/performance perspective. However,
I found the bokeh to be not nearly as nice as the 100/2.8. The 135/3.5 is
one of those hold-over lenses from the olden-days, but being halfway between
100 and 200mm (in coverage) it seems to really be a nice focal length when
100 isn't enough and 200 is too much. The 135mm soup is just right.
Where the 90/2 shines is that it is excellent at nearly all focal-lengths.
http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=258&Itemid=97
What's not to like about the 90/2?
As to darkroom work, the 135/3.5 is, in my opinion, a bit better due to the
lower contrast. You'll find shadow details hold better with the ancient,
silver-nosed lenses--especially of this particular lens. I personally found
it to be a little more flare prone than either my silver-nosed 100 or 200
lenses, but that may also be sample variance. However, I suspect that the
135/3.5 is the oldest lens formula in the Zuiko lens line. It's not my
favorite, by any means.
That said, it's a Zuiko. What Zuiko is "evil"? None. I could probably
have been satisfied with the 135/3.5 had I not had the 100/2.8. But I found
the lens too limiting with only a couple usable f-stops, the substandard
bokeh and the flare didn't help my color photographs.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|