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: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 21:36:59 +0000
At 01:49 1/6/02, Jim Brokaw wrote:
Scott -- Consider the 85/2.0 for portrait work... its a good focal length. I
think 135 compresses the face too much ('flattens' the perspective). The 85
is probably less expensive than a 100/2.0, though more than the 100/2.8, but
it is a small, handy lens with the speed to be useful in a lot of
situations.
--

Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...

Just used the 85/2 Wednesday evening at a friend's studio. Used it to photograph the friend's 18 mo. old son sniffing a giant indoor potted amarylis lily in full blossom, then put the 14mm extension tube on it and photographed the blossoms. It was an *excellent* length for working in his studio. Used a 150mm f/4 Sekor on the M645 about a week before and it was almost too long (perspective equiv. to about a 95mm in 35mm format). After working with the 85/2 Zuiko in his studio I'm thinking now about getting the 110mm f/2.8 Sekor for a slightly shorter length!

-- John


< 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