Thank you for your response Ken. Appreciate it. The 135 I was offered is an
135f2. I will appreciate an opinion
from anyone with experience with the lens.
seongwan
Ken Norton wrote:
> >b. 200f2.8
>
> I have an older Soligor 200/2.8 that seems a bit slower than 2.8, doesn't
> quite focus to infinity and is a bit less contrasty than any Zuiko lens
> I've used. That said, I think it is a bit sharper than the Zuiko 200/5 I
> had and has less distortion.
>
> My previous experience with the 135/2.8 was at the camera shop I worked at
> and I really checked out the new ones we had in stock. I don't remember
> the specifics now, but there was no comparison to the Zuiko 100/2.8 I had.
>
> I spent $150 on my 200/2.8 which for the quality of the lens I feel is
> reasonable. It has earned its keep and as long as my expectations aren't
> too high, I'm satisfied.
>
> ken
>
> Kenneth E. Norton
> Image66 Photography
>
> image66@xxxxxxx
> (515) 791-2306
>
> < 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 >
|