Soooo.... If I get the 2.8 with the intent to use it wide-open quite a bit at
concerts, would I be happy or really disappointed, especially considering how
much the Golden Child costs?
Paul Braun
Certified Music Junkie
"It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever." -- David St. Hubbins
"Music washes from the soul the dust of everyday life" - Harlan Howard
On Feb 10, 2013, at 15:38, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Thanks, Ken. As others have said, that lens is a real winner.
>
> For my own entertainment purposes, I've done a ton of comparative
> testing with my 100/2.8. The more I test, the more I get puzzled. Now,
> understand that my particular 100/2.8 is probably gifted beyond what I
> should ever expect to see from one, but still... It's like what
> Richard Petty says about auto racing. He didn't know when the first
> OFFICIAL car race was, but he knew that the first one happened when
> the second car came off the assembly line.
>
> I lived a full life without ever having the 100/2 lens. My 100/2.8 had
> me exceptionally pleased and I was very happy with it. Here is a quick
> rundown:
>
> Sharpness: At "normal apertures" I don't think one lens has any
> particular advantage over the other. At wide apertures, (F4 and
> brighter), the 100/2 has a significant edge. When stopped down for
> decent DoF, you can shrug your shoulders. I would be perfectly content
> taking the 100/2.8 instead of the 100/2 knowing that I'm not losing
> anything in the sharpness department. At F2 and F2.8, the 100/2 is
> bloody sharp.
>
> Contrast: No contest. The 100/2 blows my SC 100/2.8 out of the water.
>
> Bokeh: It depends... The 100/2 shows the common donuty artifacts of
> aspherical elements in some circumstances. It is better behaved on 4/3
> cameras for portrait work. The 100/2.8 gets a busy background when
> shooting 4/3, but the 100/2 certainly holds the advantage.
>
> Handling: This one is easy. The 100/2.8 is the lens you REALLY would
> rather use. The 100/2 is misbalanced on an OM body.
>
> Viewfinder experience: Uh, yeah. The 100/2 is in another league.
> Extremely easy to focus, and the lens suggests a lot. The 100/2.8
> doesn't stand up and scream at the top of its lungs about how to shoot
> something. The 100/2 is the ADHC child that keeps tugging at your
> sleeve saying "look over here, look over here!"
>
> Would I recommend the 100/2? Oh, most certainly! But I would suggest
> that having ANY Zuiko 100mm lens is something that every one of us
> should have. The price on the 100/2 is a bit high for OM lenses, but
> comparable to other similar lenses. The 100/2.8 (of any flavor) is the
> sleeper and under-priced miracle lens of the fleet.
>
>
> --
> Ken Norton
> ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.zone-10.com
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|