Yes, I'm quite sure the 100/2.8 is lighter. The 100/2.8 seems to be a bit
lighter even than the 85/f2, though both take 49mm filters. The 100/f2
takes 55mm filters ("bigger glass"). If medical work sometimes involves a
tripod and no compromises, the 100/f2 is how I'd go. (Not that you can't
handhold it, but ... you know what I mean.)
Joel
At 06:01 PM 11/20/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>Joel
>Do you mean that the 2.8 is actually lighter ie physically I need this for
>medical work what do you think?
>Lou
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
>Behalf Of Joel Wilcox
>Sent: Saturday, November 20, 1999 4:10 PM
>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [OM] new user
>
>Lou,
>
>If you consider 100mm the ideal length for portraits, the 100/f2 would
>generally be considered superior. The lightness of the 100/f2.8 surely has
>advantages, depending on how you shoot, and it is highly esteemed by many
>Zuiks.
>
>I like the 85/f2 for portraits. Some people also use the 90/f2 macro for
>portraits. None of the alternatives for $149 however. :-(
>
>Joel Wilcox
>Iowa City, Iowa USA
>
>At 01:23 PM 11/20/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>>Dear all,
>>How is a 100mm F2.8 used zuico for $149 USD and is this my best choice for
>>portraits?
>>Lou
>>
>>
>>
>>< 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 >
>
>
>< 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 >
|