> If you look at Gary's tests, you will see that the 135/3.5 is
> a good lens, not a great one, in terms of resolution and
> contrast. One should keep in mind the use for which it is
> intended as well. The decent, but not super sharp, moderate
> contrast characteristics could mean quite a good portrait
> lens.
I agree with this assessment, except that the bokeh of the
135/3.5 isn't quite as nice as the 100/2.8. My 135/3.5 is
sharpest at around F8, which means that the background tends to
be a bit cluttered. If I'm doing studio work, it doesn't matter,
though. If I'm doing outdoor portraiture with full-length
framing, the 135/3.5 does work pretty well since the background
goes soft but not overwhelmingly.
In reality, the 135/3.5 produces almost identical pictures to
the 135/3.5 on an old Mamiya C220 I had. Framing is obviously
different, but the optical traits are similar. However, the
look from the 135/3.5 on my Crown Graphic is radically
different. ;)
AG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|