Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 100/2.8 vs 100/2 vs 135/2.8

Subject: Re: [OM] 100/2.8 vs 100/2 vs 135/2.8
From: Scott Gomez <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:28:38 -0800
It's nice to see so many replies, and it's food for thought, thanks Zuiks!
However, so far the consensus appears to be that I have to have all of them,
in true Zuikoholic fashion. :-) Everyone has great reasons for each of their
recommendations, and those reasons even have some practical basis. So far
I'm leaning towards the 100/2.8 and (thanks Barry, I'd overlooked it!) the
85/2. Maybe both. :-/

Thanks to Moose for the quick run-through on reasons to use one or another
lens, and to Winsor for reminding me I oughta take a look at the TOPE
galleries, too.

My thoughts so far:

Tom Scales has a good point... the 85/2 is mighty smooth.

Winsor also has a great point that the 100/2.8 is nice and sharp. A fact
further reinforced by the number of TOPE shots that demonstrated just that
(interesting side-note: by my totally informal mental notes, most all the
TOPE portraits that were in B&W were also shot with the 100/2.8)

The very few 100/2 shots I managed to discover looked to me a bit low in
contrast compared to those with either of the other lenses. Is this
impression borne out by the experiences of those of you that happen to use
it?

Thanks for all the input, I'll keep reading for more...

---
Scott Gomez

< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz