Personally, I like it a lot. Perhaps it is just my eye, but comparing shots
with the 3.5 and the 2.8, I have a tough time seeing a difference, let alone
a big difference. In fact, in my 'selloff', I decided to keep the smaller
135/3.5 and sell the 135/2.8.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Prunskunas" <pyotr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 3:27 PM
Subject: [OM] 135mm f3.5 better than tests show?
> Gary's tests show the 135mm f3.5 to be a solid 'B' performer.
> How does the lens react in the real world? Searching the archives
> gave me some comments about how it made a good portrait lens
> because it made 40+ year old women look good. That sounds
> like the lens isn't crystal sharp. Does anyone use it to shoot
> buildings, especially interesting European city buildings? How
> does it perform outside of the lab?
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
>
> < 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 >
|