The screaming and wailing sounds from the camera bag says it all. Poor guy
never had a chance. There's a new sherriff in town.
Except for F2.8 and maybe F4.0, where the apertures overlap, it's pretty
much a dead heat, but at F2.8, the head honcho is the head honcho for a
reason. And then at F2.0, it just gets better.
Strangely, I'm not so sure that the bokeh is necessarily better. Different,
yes, better? Depends on subject and background distances. It looks like
there is a touch of harshness where the 2.8 is smooth, but much smoother
where the 2.8 is harsh. Way too early to know for sure. But it's still a
major "WOW" lens--especially wide-open.
It's a testiment as to how good the 100/2.8 really is as it holds up pretty
well against the 100/2. I've lived in ignorant bliss for 25 years and have a
VERY heavy file-cabinet chuck full of slides and negatives to prove that
it's a great lens. But the 100/2 doesn't whisper "awesome" it strolls into
the room with that John Wayne swagger letting you know that there is no
question who is in charge.
"Hi, my name is John, and this OM-3Ti now belongs to me."
What does surprise me is how well balanced and comfortable the lens is. It's
much larger and heavier than the 2.8, but is still tiny in comparison to
anything made today. I put it on the digibricks and it not only looked at
home, but looked just like it was made for them. However, when put on the
OM-3Ti or OM-4T (don't get me started on that direction), it looks the biz.
If it could be faulted for anything (yeah right), it's that it isn't
silvernosed. But I'm getting over it in a hurry.
AG-less Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|