> For some strange reason, I have always preferred the humble 135/3.5 to
> the bigger f/2.8 version. Such
> a special little lens... I suspect my admiration for it is similar to
> Ken Norton's admiration for
> the 100/2.8. Both are such humble, unassuming lenses, but so - what's
> the word... - handy.
Well, when it comes to the 135mm lenses, I do prefer the F2.8 version
to the F3.5 version. Even when stopped down, I find the bokeh of the
2.8 version to be a little more pleasing. The 100/2.8 is anything but
humble in my book. It is by far the most undersung lens in the entire
lineup because of the presence of the 85/2, 90/2 and 100/2. A shame,
really, because it rocks.
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/
|