Chris Crawford wrote:
>The 85 is nice but I haven't used it enough over the year and a half I've
>had it to get to know it well. I think the 100mm f2.8 is sharper and has
>better bokeh but I have been keeping the 85 in my bag because I find the
100
>makes me stand back too far for portraits (my opinion, I know others like
to
>have more distance).
Very interesting comments, Chris. I never have had an 85/2, but from
comparing designs and images, I'd suggest that the 100/2.8 is essentially
just a longer version of the 85/2. I know that mine is uniquely qualified
to maintain front-line usage after 23 years. Yes, folks, in January, it
will be 23 years that I've had the OM-2S and 100/2.8.
As to bokeh, well, I've encountered a very bizaar trait with my Zuikos. The
100/2.8 does not have near as nice of bokeh on my E-1 as it does on film.
However, the 200/4 is a far better lens on the E-1 than it is on film!
F2 lenses are great, but I wouldn't have a clue where to stuff them in my
camera bag. I believe what makes the Olympus OM system so incredibly unique
is that the photographer is free to choose from the F2 line, or from the
F2.8 line and get exceptionally good lenses either way. Personally, I
prefer the handling, size and weight of the F2.8 lenses. Oh, and the
coloring/contrast of the older lenses, but that's a personal fault.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|