If you have not used an f/3.5 lens before, you will find the viewfinder
significantly dimmer. I think of f/3.5 lenses as essentially f/4
lenses. They're only 1/3 stop faster. Not a problem if you're a Sunny-16
shooter, but can make focusing far more challenging indoors in lower light
levels. It's about 1.7 - 1.8 times less light. Not only is there more
light, the viewfinder depth of field is shallower helping to make focusing
more accurate, especially when reduced to using the field around the
micro-prism ring and split image. There's more to having a faster lens
than being able to use slower film and running wide open (with near zero
DoF at close range).
-- John
At 02:15 7/31/02, David Thatcher wrote:
I want to replace my very average 'Zelar' 135/2.8 prime.
I can get a 135/3.5 zuiko for around AUD100 locally or a 135/2.8 for
around the AUD250 mark.
I suppose my question is: is the f2.8 more than double the lens of the
f3.5, from a user perspective? It will some use as a portrait lens
mainly...
would the 100 or the 85 be lots better (I did see the discussion on the
85/2!), though these are LOTS more expensive (AUD400 for the 100/3.5)
TIA,
davidt
Adelaide, South Australia
< 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 >
|