Very true Ken. In that regard, the 100/2.8 behaves much like the 50/1.4.
And I did not mean to trash the 100/2.8, I found it to be a very sharp lens,
and very portable. Not only is it much smaller than the 100/2, it is also
1/5 of the cost.
I just have difficulty, for whatever reason, with the 100mm focal length (24
degree angle of view). I've hardly used the 100/2 since I got it. I used
the 85/2 a lot more when I had it, and even the 135/3.5 got more love.
Speaking of which, I couldn't pass up a screaming deal on the 135/3.5 on
KEH--$39 w/ caps. Now that's cheap. Anyone interested in a very well worn
100/2?
>It totally depends on the working distance. The 100/2 is better, in
>regards to bokeh, at every distance, but the 100/2.8 gets better and
>better the closer you get tot he subject. At a greater distance, the
>bokeh becomes more "lively", like some of the Zeiss lenses mentioned
>earlier, which contributes to more edginess on the subject.
>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/
|