Selling the 100/2 was one of my regrets. I was in a retro fit of sorts when
I sold many of my 55mm filter lens such as the 24/2, 35/2, 135/2.8 and
100/2 in favor of 49mm filter lens. I did get back into the f/2 swing of
things with the astounding 14-35/2 fro 4/3rds though.
-Warren
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Would anyone care to compare this to the 35-100/2 digital Zuiko (which I
> > don't have yet). Other than one stop slower and less reach, has anyone
> put
> > it on their OM-D?
>
> I've never personally tried the 35-100/2, but have experienced almost
> all of the other lenses of that class. I'd say that the 35-100/2 is a
> lens which will meet and beat every other zoom out there in it's focal
> length range. In a league all its own.
>
> What I can speak to is two lenses: OM Zuiko 35-80/2.8 and OM Zuiko
> 100/2. If the 35-100/2 is better than the 100/2, then I don't know how
> or whether it could ever matter. The 100/2 is simply astounding. It's
> contrasty and almost too sharp. Portraiture in either full-frame 35mm
> or 4/3 format, this lens delivers.
>
> The 35-80/2.8 doesn't give up much on the 100/2. It is not as
> contrasty and more prone to flare. But beyond that, the lens is as
> good as any sensor you are going to put behind it. It is my preferred
> portrait lens for 4/3. The one stop difference, wide-open, is
> insignificant for all practical purposes because you will get almost
> the same DoF and Bokeh characteristics at 80/2.8 as 100/2.
>
> Both lenses have an unusual characteristic which I've seen with only a
> few lenses. The OM Zuikos: 35/2, 50/1.2, 90/2, 100/2 and 35-80/2.8 all
> have this characteristic to some extent, but I think the 35-80/2.8 and
> 50/1.2 exhibit it the most. It has a distinct 3D quality to the
> images. A portrait has the uncanny look that you can reach around
> behind the person. The subject/background separation is unlike
> anything I see from other lenses. This is something that you see when
> the lens is stopped down and not just shot wide open. The 35-80/2.8 is
> just different. It's a signature which once you recognize, you'll be
> able to identify when viewing your own and other people's pictures.
>
> Just like the OM-3Ti, my only regret with the 35-80/2.8 is that I
> didn't buy one the moment they came out.
>
> As to use on the OM-D, I use them on my E-1 or DMC-L1 where there is
> more mass. I tried the 35-80 on the OM-D in the store and was greatly
> disappointed because the camera is literally too small and too light
> making ALL my legacy lenses horribly misbalanced. Your Mileage May
> Vary. I decided that the OM-D was not for me based on this experience.
> The lenses are far more important to me than the camera body. I'll
> pass on getting camera bodies that don't fit the lenses right.
>
> The 35-80/2.8 is one of my "dying gasp" lenses.
>
> --
> Ken Norton
> ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.zone-10.com
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
Warren Kato
(714) 504-6081
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|