On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Mike Lazzari <watershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> > but one should not discount how much easier the 90 is to use.
> Easy to use?? It's manual focus! If I want easy to use and hand hold any
> modern AF like my Sigma 105/2.8, 35mm or even the 12~50 m4:3 is better.
>
Were we not comparing the 90 and 135? I find the 90 a lot easier to use
than the 135, which is quantified in the sheer number of "normal" 90mm
shots I make with the lens. I never use the 135/4.5 in the same way I use
the 135/2.8, for example, for the simple reason that it is a more
complicated rig.. YMMV.
It is also harder for me to focus than the 90/2. My keeper rate on film is
better with the 90/2. With the 5D and EMF adapter as a digital back, my
keeper rate has improved.
This doesn't mean I don't like the 135/4.5 and I'm not disparaging it. In
fact, I am using it more than ever. Where it is at its best, I still don't
find it better than the 90/2, but I like the working distance, etc. If I
can only take one, I take the 90/2.
In hopes of lightening the kit, I once compared the 85/2 and 90/2. The
85/2 is pretty good but requires the 7mm tube for it to be as versatile as
the 90/2. The convenience (for me, at least) of the 90/2 always seems to
trump the lighter 85/2 + tube.
>
> > The difference between f2 and f4.5 is very significant....
> True, but the dof is still too shallow IMO. Even stacking one would use
> a smaller aperture. Only useful for focus, then stop down.
Yes, that was the gist of my comment. Lens speed is really nice for
manual focusing.
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|