Hi,
>In terms of actually using these lenses, what is the difference between the
>100/2 and the 100/2.8 (other than the extra f-stop and being heavier,
etc.)?
I've never owned (nor used) the f2.8, but the 100/2 (along with the 24/2 on
the other end) is my very favourite lens and I cannot envision myself ever
going anywhere _with_ an OM body and _without_ the 100/2. :)
I find this to be the ideal portrait lens, and also for general purposes it
is really nice. Put it on a few extension tubes and you'll find yourself
with a great macro lens.
Look down into the depths of that awesome pool of ED glass and you'll
immediately fall in love with it...:) This is what I call the "100/2 magic"
:)
Really, I find this to be THE example of Zuiko quality. The weight doesn't
bother me at all, but I can imagine some people wanting a slightly lighter
lens.
>If you had both, when would you use one over the other?
Uhhhhh, honestly? My answer would be: 100/2 always, 100/2.8 never. :))) Even
in high risk areas would I bring the 100/2; I've made sure to get good
insurance on it. :)
Then, regarding an interesting comment coming from Tom:
> goes to 1:2 (Did I get that right)? The 100/2 is really TOO sharp for me
> and the results in portraiture are more pleasing to me with the 100/2.8 or
> 90/2 (I actually prefer the 90/2).
Hmmmm, can a lens ever be _too_ sharp? In the case that a softer image is
desired I think I'd simply apply one of the various blurring techniques
(such as filters), or opening it all the way up to f2. Having said that, I
really can never push myself to actually intentionally making a picture
soft/blurred, I really like the ultimate sharpness. :)
Oh, one more thing: to me, the 100/2 is a synonym for excellent bokeh, it is
really Smoooothhhhh with a big capital 'S'. :)))))
Cheers!
Olafo
< 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 >
|