Personally I DO like the 135/3.5, but do admit that the 135/2.8 is probably
'better'. Just like almost all the faster Zuikos are 'better', but they all
produce fine photographs.
I'm a member of the smaller is better, silvernose is good, they all do great
fan club.
My 21 is a 3.5, my 28 is a 2.8, my 135 is a 3.5 and my 200 is a 5.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Culberson" <waynecul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Re: 135/2.8 (was a digestreply)
>
> Well, I have the kit you describe there and...frankly...I do find the
> 135/3.5 to be less contrasty and "sharp" than its /2.8 big brother.
> Quite a shame, since it is a cute little lens - but I rarely pick
> thatone over the 135/2.8. If you get a chance to borrow a 135/3.5,
> you should test it out to see if the image appeals to you (and if you
> are around where I am, I'd be happy to lend mine to you for a test
> run). I think that the 100/2.8 and 135/3.5 are miles apart....
>
> --thomas
>
> That's interesting Thomas. I think it is Tom Scales who has spoken very
> favorably about the 135/3.5 in the past. I plan to keep the 135/2.8, as it
> is especially better for combination with a 2x, but the appeal for the
other
> 135 is for the smaller size and filter size. I had thought they were
> reportedly quite similar in image quality.
> Wayne
>
>
> < 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 >
|