At 11:28 AM 12/19/1999 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>In my lustful Zuikholic daze I have run across both these lenses. After
>searching the archives, and other web sites I am left with a few questions.
>1. Why an 85mm if I already have a 100mm 2.8? What are the advantages of
>the 85 over the 100 2.8?
>
In absolute terms, the advantage of an 85 over a 100 is its peculiar field
of view. Tele lengths do different things. The range of 100 to 135 is
preferred for most portraiture because they cause a slight flattening of
the face, which is considered more pleasing, especially with western models
(translation: make my nose smaller, please). This might not be the best
approach with an Asian model or with children, so the 85 is better in that
case. The working distance of the 85 seems quite good with children too,
as it's a little easier to keep their attention (i.e., they're not across
the room). The 100 is considered a good compromise for most portraiture
work and perhaps the working distance is a little more suitable for adult
models.
These are pretty gross generalizations though.
More specifically, the 85/f2 and 100/2.8 lenses themselves are virtually
the same size. The 85 is extremely good at the middle stops (4, 5.6, and 8
if I recollect), making it very nice for handheld work with slower film.
If I recall correctly, Gary Reese's lens tests don't indicate that either
of these lenses is in the same category as the 90/f2 or 100/f2, but they're
both very good. The 85/f2 has a really nice feel, but ounce for ounce I
suspect the 100/2.8 is a little better value. The 85 seems to be somewhat
harder to find and therefore more expensive when one does find one.
Should one have both? I've got an 85 and 90/f2. I'm tapped out and
skipping the 100's. :-(
Joel Wilcox
Iowa City, Iowa USA
< 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 >
|