> Would anyone care to compare this to the 35-100/2 digital Zuiko (which I
> don't have yet). Other than one stop slower and less reach, has anyone put
> it on their OM-D?
I've never personally tried the 35-100/2, but have experienced almost
all of the other lenses of that class. I'd say that the 35-100/2 is a
lens which will meet and beat every other zoom out there in it's focal
length range. In a league all its own.
What I can speak to is two lenses: OM Zuiko 35-80/2.8 and OM Zuiko
100/2. If the 35-100/2 is better than the 100/2, then I don't know how
or whether it could ever matter. The 100/2 is simply astounding. It's
contrasty and almost too sharp. Portraiture in either full-frame 35mm
or 4/3 format, this lens delivers.
The 35-80/2.8 doesn't give up much on the 100/2. It is not as
contrasty and more prone to flare. But beyond that, the lens is as
good as any sensor you are going to put behind it. It is my preferred
portrait lens for 4/3. The one stop difference, wide-open, is
insignificant for all practical purposes because you will get almost
the same DoF and Bokeh characteristics at 80/2.8 as 100/2.
Both lenses have an unusual characteristic which I've seen with only a
few lenses. The OM Zuikos: 35/2, 50/1.2, 90/2, 100/2 and 35-80/2.8 all
have this characteristic to some extent, but I think the 35-80/2.8 and
50/1.2 exhibit it the most. It has a distinct 3D quality to the
images. A portrait has the uncanny look that you can reach around
behind the person. The subject/background separation is unlike
anything I see from other lenses. This is something that you see when
the lens is stopped down and not just shot wide open. The 35-80/2.8 is
just different. It's a signature which once you recognize, you'll be
able to identify when viewing your own and other people's pictures.
Just like the OM-3Ti, my only regret with the 35-80/2.8 is that I
didn't buy one the moment they came out.
As to use on the OM-D, I use them on my E-1 or DMC-L1 where there is
more mass. I tried the 35-80 on the OM-D in the store and was greatly
disappointed because the camera is literally too small and too light
making ALL my legacy lenses horribly misbalanced. Your Mileage May
Vary. I decided that the OM-D was not for me based on this experience.
The lenses are far more important to me than the camera body. I'll
pass on getting camera bodies that don't fit the lenses right.
The 35-80/2.8 is one of my "dying gasp" lenses.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|