Ken Norton wrote:
> >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.
Feh.
> ... 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.
>
Perhaps the longest for you. For me, it's the 200/5. The same length as
the 35-105/3.5-4.5 extended to 105 mm. At 380 g, it's much lighter than
the 35-105's 470 g and MUCH lighter than the 35-80/2.8. No good in poor
light, but a delight in daylight and no problem with faster film in
moderately dim light.
I haven't posted this before, because I can't seem to get the
detail/texture of the trunk to look quite right at the reduced for web
size. It's still a great example of the nice reach of a 200 mm lens. I
like the way this tree grew around the wire of the fence before dying,
being cut off and still serving the fence. However, it's at the top of a
small cliff, so that a shorter lens can't frame it properly. Comfortably
hand held, probably 1/250 @ f11.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous&image=6481_26a.jpg>
The specs don't quite convey to me how much smaller and lighter it
actually looks and feels compared to the 200/4. Its odd to look at it
next to the 300/4.5 and realize the monster is only 50% longer and about
the same speed.
> The lens is 50% "longer" than the 90mm, so it's actually in the realm of
> being in another focal-length range.
Agreed. I assume this thread started 'cause Dawid has both lenses,
hasn't got his darkroom working yet, and needed something to do about
his eagerness to play with lenses. So he did it by proxy.
> 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.
>
I prefer 50, 100, 200, hoping that sneaker zoom can accommodate the
coverage differences. That and a WA are what I was carrying when I took
the above. 50/1.4, 85/2, 135/2.8 is also a good combo for me for more speed.
> 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?
>
Sharpness, or modest, but annoying lack of same, at 1:4 to 1:2.
> 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.
Mine is black nosed, but still SC. Hardly ever use it, as the 135/2.8 I
acquired later is still small and light enough for me and a better lens.
Yeah, I do know what you think of closet queens. :-)
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
