A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Olympus and Four-Thirds > OM Zuiko 100mm f2.8 vs. Zuiko...

Featured Equipment Deals

Transformational Imagemaking: An Interview with Robert Hirsch Read More

Transformational Imagemaking: An Interview with Robert Hirsch

Robert Hirsch takes us through history in this interview about his new book, beginning with the groundbreaking 60s to contemporary work of today, featuring artists in his book that "...literally have...

Latest Equipment Articles

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs Read More

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs

Photo packs have come a long way in the past decade, especially those that are targeted toward outdoor and adventure photographers. Alaska-based adventure photographer Dan Bailey takes a closer look...

Latest Learning Articles

5 Tips for Combating Red-Eye Read More

5 Tips for Combating Red-Eye

Red-eye doesn't have to ruin your photos. Learn 5 simple tricks to avoid and eliminate this undesirable photographic effect.


OM Zuiko 100mm f2.8 vs. Zuiko 135mm f3.5

Gabriel P. , Dec 20, 2005; 04:36 p.m.

Hello!

Please have your say on these two lenses, considering optical performance (is there a BIG difference between them?), handling, price (do you happen to know what would be the price for each?)... Which one would suit better for portraits to tight headshots? I might be able to choose between these two, which one to purchase, and your answers to these questions of mine would help me a lot.

Thank you, OM lovers.

Responses


    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Gabriel P. , Dec 20, 2005; 04:50 p.m.

and vs. Zuiko 65-200 f4

Oh, i forgot to mention that i own a Zuiko 65-200 f4. My purchasing of one of the two lenses i mentioned above would involve selling the zoom. So how would this 65-200 compare to the two lenses mentioned above (especially the 135), considering the contrast and resolution?

J DC , Dec 20, 2005; 07:29 p.m.

I own both a Zuiko 100f2.8 and a Zuiko 135f2.8. The 135f3.5 is smaller & lighter than the f2.8 (and also uses 49mm filters). The 100 has been one of my favorite optics for more than 25 years. It's ideal for travelling, great for portraits (some might argue an 85mm is better) etc. I find the 135 a little too long for formal (i.e. indoor) portraits but it provides a greater working distance for outdoor portraiture. I bought the 100 first and for many years used it, and the 200f5 for all my telephoto stuff. I added the used 135 after some years but when travelling light always reach for the 100f2.8 (ironically I might also pack the heavy 35f2 and 55f1.2).

Having said all that, given the prices these days the 135f3.5 is a real bargain.

Jim

Neil D. , Dec 20, 2005; 10:22 p.m.

I have used the combination: 50mm, 85mm, and 135mm for full-body, head+torso, and head only shots. I haven't ever owned a 100/2.8 so I cannot comment, but for me it would be too close to both the 85 and the 135. I have owned the 135/3.5 in the past - it is a very small and light lens and the optical quality seemed to be quite fine, but I found that I was always using the 135/2.8 whenever I wanted that focal length, so I sold it. I believe the 100/2.8 is more popular than the 135/3.5 and is therefore usually more expensive.

Ruben Bittermann , Dec 21, 2005; 08:21 a.m.

Hi, Owning both lenses, I have to say the following. Both lenses are as good as any zuiko, although I cannot display resolution numbers since I am not in that trend.

Yet the 135 has a unique quality, a kind of very special soft focus, that distinguishes it for good. This is 1:0 at the match.

But an important factor is what lenses do you have after the standard 50. If you have the 85, then definitely the match ends by 2:0 in favour of the 135.

If you don't own the Zuiko 85, then in my opinion you'll have to include this factor in your calculations.

In my case after the 50, I bought the 100, then the 135 and then the 85 - a totally spontaneous and erroneous way.

Cheers,

Ruben

Ruben Bittermann , Dec 21, 2005; 08:25 a.m.

I FORGOT TO MENTION:

After having all the abovementioned lenses, I find myself all times excluding from use the 100, and using instead the 85 + 135 combination.

PS: my 135 is the 3.5: excellent, compact and 49mm thread.

Bas Scheffers , Dec 21, 2005; 08:40 a.m.

The 135/3.5 never did it for me, at all. Maybe I had a bad copy, I don't know. The 100/2.8 I really liked.

Gabriel P. , Dec 21, 2005; 11:40 a.m.

no,

I don't have the 85 (but maybe i will some day! :) ) Now I only have the 28mm f3.5 and the 50mm 1.8. And the zoom, which will go.

And one more thing.. I've worked a deal: the 65-200 zoom for an OM1n body + the 135mm f3.5.

What do you think?

Ruben Bittermann , Dec 21, 2005; 04:33 p.m.

28 - 50 - 135 combination may work good for me, if I consider that the 50 will play the central part, which for me is accurate. In the future you may add the 35 and the 85 according to your instincts.

Having fewer lenses is like living with a good diet, less weight - faster movement. Becomming lenses fat slows your shooting and brings too much thinking.

Your deal sounds cool. And sport your OM wherever you want to look ultimatively fancy.

Cheers,

Ruben

Todd Phillips , Dec 21, 2005; 07:42 p.m.

Right now, my kit is almost identical to yours....28 3.5, 50 1.8 mij, and the 135 3.5 (silver nose). They are all great lenses. BTW, how is your experience with the 28 3.5? This lens is supposed to have some mythical status among Japanese photographers. I like the results from mine, but haven't tested it extensively.

If I need something wider, I'll probably get a 24 2.8...but right now this three lens kit is fine!


    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses