Yes, it is! I think it and the 50/2 are neck-and-neck for the best of the
Zuikos, and that's saying a lot.
I kinda regret that I didn't include it in my Odyssey kit. My original intent
was to use just the 35-80/2.8, but I changed my mind and took also the 21/2 and
50/2, but instead of the 100/2, I threw in the 180/2.8, 1.4X-A and 2X-A TCs --
just in case I found something a fer piece away. This all fit into a fanny
pack ("bum bag" if you prefer), but there was no room for the 100/2. :-[
Anyway, pending the return of my last roll of Kodachrome -- fingers crossed
here -- the best shot on the roll maybe -- and that's a definite "maybe" -- was
taken with the 180/2.8 and 2X-A. That remains to be seen, however, because the
light was low and the tripod was 500 yards away.
I'd give up the 35-80/2.8 or the 90/2 before I'd let go the 100/2. I feel
pretty much the same way about the 135/4.5, too.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Ditto to everyone else's praise of the photo. Most excellent!
> > And total agreement with your assessment of this lens. The
> > very last three Zuikos whose custody I might ever relinquish
> > would be the 21/2, 50/2, and 100/2, and I would have to be
> > under extreme duress to do so and probably trying to decide if
> > it's a "from my cold, dead hands" sort of situation.
>
> Come on, Walt. The 100/2 ain't that good.
>
> ...at least that's what I keep tell'n myself.
>
> AG
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|