On Thu, 15 May 2003 20:51:49 -0400
"Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
Yup. For all the Zuikos I have, I can say that the ultimate
limitation usually is the photographer, not the glass.
> I'm a member of the smaller is better, silvernose is good, they all
> do great fan club.
<tom-mocking>
Uhmm...I thought that in the US, the phrase was "bigger is better" -
or perhaps "do you want to super-size that order?" :) Weren't you the
guy who had 2 samples of the 180/2 sitting around? Smaller is better,
huh? :)
</tom-mocking>
>
> My 21 is a 3.5, my 28 is a 2.8, my 135 is a 3.5 and my 200 is a 5.
That's a good kit. I have the 28/2.8, which I find to be one of the
often unspoken gems of the Zuiko series, as well as the 200/5 which I
- much to my surprise - find on par with and occationally better than
my 200/4.
I'd often "suit up" with 28/2.8 (or 24/2.8), 85/2 and 200/5 since
that makes for something that can easilly be carried in coat pockets
without looking more silly than my usual self...:)
I've got to try a 21/3.5 some day.......well, on second thought, I
better not :)
--thomas
>
> 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 >
>
--
-------------------------------------------
Thomas Heide Clausen
Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
M.Sc in Computer Engineering
E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|