Me, I'd do it differently. I'd go with a 135/3.5 and a 200/5. Both are
cheap enough, if you'er patient, that your total outlay wouldn't be that
much more than either the 200/4 or 135/2.8. Personaly I love the 200/5. It
is so small and light; not that much bigger the the 135. It also uses 49mm
filters, just like the 135/3.5.
Now, it would be slow, but you'd have a 270/7 and a 400/10 too. Although,
honestly, as much as I like the 2X-a, I wouldn't have it in a small kit.
It's worth $125-150 and for that, you could probably come close to owning
the 135/3.5 and the 200/5.
Tom
> To keep myself lean in these graduate school years, I need to limit
> myself to 2. my original thought was to have a 90/2 and 200/4, but the
> 85/2 focal length and size are more appealing than the 90/2, and the
> distance you get w/ the 135 seems to be enough. I also have the 2x-A
> that could make a nice 270/5.6 instead of a gargantuan 400/8. remember,
> the subject is architectural details, and I don't need that much "reach"
>
> What would y'all say about the 135/2.8 over the 200/4?
< 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 >
|