On 1/25/2011 1:09 PM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> Took about 18 months ago, and recently printed - from an enjoyable
> early-morning outing just watching the city of Durban (ZA) wake up...
>
> "Movin' on up"
> http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/023/3/8/movin___on_up_by_philosomatographer-d37vnf3.jpg
> (Olympus OM-2n kindly donated by Clay, 135/3.5 wide open, Ilford FP4+,
> analogue darkroom print on 5x7in RC paper)
Now that's excellent! [Nice bokeh, too ;-) ]
> For some strange reason, I have always preferred the humble 135/3.5 to the
> bigger f/2.8 version. Such a special little lens... I suspect my admiration
> for it is similar to Ken Norton's admiration for
> the 100/2.8. Both are such humble, unassuming lenses, but so - what's the
> word... - handy.
My unsung hero is the 200/5. For me, it has all the qualities you find in the
135/3.5
I tend toward the 135/2.8 over the f3.5. the 2.8 doesn't go over my size weight
= comfortable, casual, handy limit. The
200/4 does go over, while the 200/5 just squeaks under.
My 200/4 MC is almost certainly a better lens than the SC f5, but the lens I
have with me takes better images than the
one at home. :-)
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
