Well, I've seriously fallen off the wagon over the past few weeks and
have had a pretty good zuikoholic bender. Most recently, I ran across a
Zuiko 100/2 in a pawn shop for $200, complete with Oly UV filter and hood
for the 35/2 ;) I couldn't resist. As I already have, and like very
much, the 100/2.8, I was curious as to other's opinions on these lenses.
First off, it seems to me that unlike other f/2 lenses such as the 28,
the 100/2 is not a replacement for the 100/2.8, since it is about 3 times
the size. This is one serious chunk of glass! I was originally thinking
that I could sell the 100/2.8 if I got the 100/2 (yeah, right!), but now
I'm pretty sure that I really wouldn't want to. The 100/2.8 is so
perfect for backpacking, since it's so small and light, that I really
couldn't justify lugging around the extra weight of the 100/2. Anyway, I
was wondering how others used this lens? When do you feel it's worth
carrying the extra bulk for that additional stop? I must admit that I
already like the f/2 a lot, with all that glass and all those aperture
blades, and I'm really looking forward to trying it out.
Mark Marr-Lyon
You're gonna get plenty of opinions on this one, Mark. I've two responses.
First, a faster lens isn't just _faster_ but rather (hopefully) an entirely
different lens. The Zuiko 100m f/2 is world class all around, for what that
might be worth.
What's it good for? Anything you can fit in its frame! Whether it's good
for backpacking as opposed to the smaller Zuiko is something else. I've
never owned the f/2.8 version. My guess is that's a good lens, too, so it
might be the better choice if you keep it. I'd probably sell it, though.
Why have two 100mm's lying around?
(saidthemanwhohasfour50mmslyingaround)
Tris
< 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 >
|