Of course, but the 85 cost twice as much as the 100. If you have the
budget, got for it. On the other hand, it is closer to the 50 than the 100,
something to consider.
Bryan Pilati
OM-2n; IS-3
Va-USA
Disclaimer: I'm always joking
unless I should be serious.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Gries" <rgg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 5:39 PM
Subject: RE: [OM] 85/2 subject matter
> Schnozz, it's sad but true. The 85/2 will change your life. It will
> make you a better photographer, improve your golf swing, and will
> attract more women.
>
> To my eye the 85 seems more natural of a perspective. I reckon that
> both the 100 and 85 focal lengths will give great bokeh, but the 85
> doesn't flatten the subject as much as the 100.
>
> If I were on a sinking ship, I would grab this lens first. My most used
> lens is the 35 shift, but that can easily be replaced. The 85/2 is just
> great. It will be frozen along side me in my cryogenic chamber for
> future generations to enjoy. I have seen several nice SN versions go by
> on ebbsbay....
>
> <snip>
>
> I love the Bokeh (I know, it only exists in our minds) and sharpness of
> the 100/2.8 and am thinking, based on my limited exposure to the 85/2,
> that it is just a slightly wider version of what I already own.
>
>
> < 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 >
|