I will step in as the one dissenting opinion.
No doubt that the 85 f/2 is a nice lens. I owned one and liked it,
compact, light, fast, and takes 49 mm filters but... I rarely shot it
wide open at f/2, and I REALLY like the tad extra reach with the 100
f2/8 which also takes 49 mm filters, so for me it was sell the expensive
85 and keep the 100. It has become a part of my favorite 2 lens
'snapshot' kit - 40 f/2 and the 100 f/2.8. Maybe it is me, but I seem to
really like the 'lowly' 100, and the even 'lowlier' 135.
Ultimately it is up to you. Now a smart man would bury his head firmly
in the camera bag, however, as a Zuikaholic you have already established
your lack of good judgment.
I believe the cost difference was largely due to the close focusing
correction on the 85. Oh, and contrary to what everyone here may tell
you, the 85 DOES NOT clean up the table after dinner!
Jim Couch
AG Schnozz wrote:
> Inquiring minds want to know...
>
> Is the 85/2 substantially different from my 100/2.8? Should I
> just keep my nose in my own camera bag and leave it to the
> "ain't missed what I never had" category?
>
> I love the Bokeh (I know, it only exists in our minds) and
> sharpness of the 100/2.8 and am thinking, based on my limited
> exposure to the 85/2, that it is just a slightly wider version
> of what I already own.
>
> Would my 100/2.8 be threatened by the presence of the 85/2?
> Would it require that the lens go on Pros*c because of the
> depression of being replaced?
>
> Why was the 85/2 twice as expensive as the 100/2.8 back in 1978?
>
> Will it automatically clean up the table after dinner?
>
> AG-Digging a pit-Schnozz
< 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 >
|