It depends so much on what you want to do with the lens and on
individual taste. Even the definition of performance is individual. For
taking pics of people, the 85/2 is close to perfect, with something
magic about being sharp without quite the 'edge' that can make portraits
unappealing. It's not something you can easily get with a filter,
physical or electronic. The 100/2.8 is similar, but with less speed,
isn't as good at isolating the subject from background. The 135/2.8
isn't bad either, with the DOF difference of a longer lens making up for
the speed, but one must like the different perspective.
With the 90 & 100mm f2s, I chose the 90/2 for a very simple reason,
close focus. The 100/2 may be sharper, at least at normal focusing
distances, may balance easier, be less 'different', but it just doesn't
focus close enough. I do like the 90, but find myself often wishing it
focused closer. Maybe I just need to start carrying an extension tube
around with me, but then there is all that putting on and taking off.
I don't find the 90/2 all that weird, probably a benefit of using zooms
a lot, where the aperture ring is at the back. Maybe I should just
follow Luca's example, but outside the computer, and re-label the Kiron
105/2.8 as a Zuiko. :-)
Moose
Skip Williams wrote:
>Those lens choices are nice, but pretty different in their money requirements.
> The 85/2 would be my choice to start with, otherwise the 100/2 is nice and
>more "Zuiko-like" than the wacky 90/2 (I have the 90). The 85 will be a 1/2
>step below the others in image quality.
>
>iwert wrote:
>
>If looking in the 85-100 range, I'd go for the 100f2, best quality and
>serious value for money. I think the 90 is overpriced. The 50f2 has become
>my favourite lately, because it is a real good alrounder, however big.
>
>The 100 f2 balances a LOT better with an OM body than the 90f2.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|