On 11/29/2014 1:56 AM, Chris Crawford wrote:
I¹ve had a 135mm f3.5 for many years. My dad bought it for me when I was a
kid! I have not used it a lot, but when I have it has been a very good
lens. Any advantage to the f2.8 version other than 1/2 stop of speed? The
f3.5 version I have is incredibly tiny, which I love.
Is it performance, or esthetics? I have both versions of the 135 and of the 200. For some reason, I've always preferred
the 135/2.8 and the 200/5. I know that the 200/4 is almost certainly the better lens, esp. as it is fully MC, but
apparently the f5 version is below some inexactly defined size/weight threshold. (Cuter?)
But then both 135s are apparently below that threshold, and I just like the
look/feel of the f2.8 more.
Aesthetic Moose?
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|