The 100/2 is not a decent lens....it's a spectacular lens! But vs. the
100/2.8, it comes at quite a size, weight, and price premium. The 100/2 is one
of the later, advanced lenses of the Zuiko line along with the 90/2, 50/2, and
35-80/2.8. It produces extremely sharp, contrasty images with lovely bokeh and
gives up nothing to competing lenses from other manufacturers.
That said, I like the 85/2 over the 100/2 as the 85/s smaller size means a lot
to me. In fact, I prefer the 90/2 over the 100/2, as I find the macro
capability a big plus. And I didn't notice a significant difference in
performance between the 90/2 and 100/2 in my cursory evaluation of the two
lenses.
I never fell in love with the 100/2.8, despite all the 15 years that I had one.
It make nice images, but I much preferred the 85/2 or the longer, 135/2.8
after much use.
Skip
>
>Subject: [OM] 100 vs. 100
> From: Ross Orr <voxbongo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 20:05:18 -0500
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>I love my 85/2--but having used a 100 with a previous (non-OM)
>camera, I sometimes feel that it may be a more generally useful focal
>length.
>
>Does anyone have an opinion about the 100/2? Seems like a steep
>size/price premium over the /2.8, but closer focusing. . . Decent
>lens?
>
< 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 >
|