Just replying to myself here, there is a (seemingly decent) 135/3.5
on german ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2929277044&category=12876
Not sure if it is a good price or not for this beast. They say
"shipping to Europe only", but trans-shipping should not be
impossible to arrange....BIN: 39 Eur...
--thomas
On Fri, 16 May 2003 04:25:06 +0200
Thomas Heide Clausen <T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2003 21:48:48 -0300
> "Wayne Culberson" <waynecul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> Well, I guess it largely comes down to taste, to what subjects are
> being photographed and to what "other requirements" are present.
> The 135/2.8 is larger, heavier and has a different "image" than
> that of the 135/3.5. I am not sure that I will say that the /2.8
> makes a"better" image than the /3.5 - just different. I happen to
> prefer the/2.8 - and I know for a fact that Tom takes excellent
> pictures with his /3.5 :)
>
> The one difference that I think I can state somewhat factually is,
> that the /2.8 is more contrasty than the /3.5. At least, that's how
> my two lenses behave. Again, while contrast may increase the
> "apparent sharpness" of a picture, it is not always desired.
>
> All that said.....I still think of the 100/2.8 as a "super stellar"
> performer, whereas I only think of the 135/3.5 as a "good"
> performer. It's definitely not a "dog", but I do think of the
> 100/2.8 as better(and the 85/2 as better again....)
>
> All this is modulo what I prefer and what subjects I usually shoot.
> Hence, my reccomendation to try out the lens to see if it appeals
> to you :)
>
> --thomas
>
> < 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 >
|