I like the way you think... the 85/2 for my standard kit, but a 200/4
for when I need the reach. What do you think about the 100-200/5?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Couch
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 11:23 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] 100/2 vs. 85/2 in sharpness
The 85 f2 is plenty sharp, especially when stopped down a couple of
stops. I
would not worry about it at all. It is a wonderful lens! I have not
tried it
with the 2x-A myself so I can't comment on that. However, if you are
looking
for a longer focal length you can get a Zuiko 200 f4 which is also a
wonderful lens for les than the cost of a 2x-A in equivelanet condition.
Jim Couch
gries wrote:
> Dear enablers:
>
> I am looking to purchase (in the near future) a short telephoto for
> capturing architectural details. I was figuring that the 85/2 would
do
> since this is the focal length that seems to look the best to my eye,
> but now you have me concerned about the sharpness. Any opinions on
> which one to get? What is the relative performance of the 100/2.8,
and
> how does the 85/2 perform w/ the 2x-A? any and all help is
appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>
> gries
< 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 >
< 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 >
|