Hi Dawid, Bill, Ken and all,
Another vote here for the "humble" 135/3.5!
From: "Bill Pearce" <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx>
>Although I have never even seen or held the smaller 135, in the end of film
>days, I found the 135/2.8 to be a real go-to lens
I had both, but eventually sold the 2.8. I find quite a difference in
handling... more than cool figures may suggest. Seeing their optical
layouts, the 135/2.8 has a lot (4) of relatively thick elements at the
front, with only a very thin element at the back. On the other hand, the 3.5
is much more "balanced", thus _feels_ much lighter. I noticed a similar
effect in other gear combos:
(OM4 + Zuiko 200/4) vs. (Yashica FX-3 + Sonnar 135/2.8)
They weight _exactly_ the same, but the Oly rig feels lighter again -- and
much easier for astrophotography tracking!
The only problem I have with the 3.5 is... relatively low flare resistance
-- and AFAIK no unit of this lens had multicoating ever :-(
From: Ken Norton [mailto:ken@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>The 100/2.8 is anything but
>humble in my book. It is by far the most undersung lens in the entire
>lineup because of the presence of the 85/2, 90/2 and 100/2
I have a 100/2.8, silvernosed, #1167xx (is that within the "magic range",
Ag?) but I always go for the 85/2: same size, nearly the same focal length,
but a full stop faster -- the key for us "available darkness" shooters. I
currently have a borrowed 100/2, but that's BIG...
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|