I have taken some of the nicest candid portraits with the 85 and the
results have been stunning. The 90 f2 is maybe superior ( I can't tell the
difference from viewing prints or slides ) but it feels a bit heavier and I
don't find myself as at home as I am with the 85 for people pics.
Moral: Size does matter...smaller is better in lens. Somethinkg Oly had,
has right.
At 10:56 AM -0800 9/9/98, Shawn Wright wrote:
>On 9 Sep 98 at 8:03, Richard Dale wrote:
>
>> Although I have used the 100 f2.8 for many years finding it my most used
>> lens/focal length I have now decided to replace it with an 85 f2 (which I
>> haven't taken delivery of yet).
>> I found the only disadvantage with the 100 was that it was a too long for
>> studio portraits. As they are very close together re. focal length I had
>> intended selling the 100. I don't really like using a 50mm for portraits.
>> Has anyone on the list had any experience in using both lenses, I assume
>> the 85 f2 to be
>> (probably slightly) superior in optical quality, is this so?
>
>I've never done a direct comparison with the 100/2.8, but I chose my 85/2
>because it seemed the perfect length, and I wanted the extra stop. It is
>now my
>most used lens, and produces very sharp and contrasty results.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|