Post Pics From Your OM

[Trius]

This is my fat, greedy 15 yr old cat DEMANDING food from my parents at dinner time. He lives at their house, where he was born.

Their house? I think not... just ask the cat.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The cat thinks he's God. Since I refuse to call him thet, he settles for Simba. LOL His Excellency says its so hard to find good slaves these days, LOL

 

[Darkhorse]

I had a nice photoshoot with my lady this afternoon. I went fully automatic aperture priority with the whole roll. I shot with Trista-Xemium 400 again, EI 800. Developed in HC110 dilution B for 10.5 minutes. Pleased as punch with how this combo turned out.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Darkhorse, gorgeous portraits! All with your 50mm lens? I like 50's for portraits, they're very under-rated

 

[Darkhorse]

Thanks. Yep, it was taken with my little 50. I'd love that 85mm but it's still pretty pricey.

 

[gavinlg]

Gorgeous portraits, your lady is super photogenic. You guys make me miss my old OMs even more..

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Thanks. Yep, it was taken with my little 50. I'd love that 85mm but it's still pretty pricey.

If you want a good portrait lens without spending a fortune, get a 100mm f2.8 Zuiko. Its tiny, VERY sharp, has smoother bokeh than the 85, and usually sells for less than $100.

This was shot with mine.

 

[Darkhorse]

Hmmm! That's awesome. I was thinking of getting the 200... but the 100? Hmmmmm...

 

[zuikomaniac]

OM-1 with 100mm 2.8

 

[Darkhorse]

Does anyone have any examples of the 200mm lens?

 

[Trius]

Can't site any examples, but results I've seen from the 200 have been very good. However, the f/4 is somewhat uncommon. The 100/2.8 is just superb and relatively easy to obtain. It is my favourite focal length for mountainous areas and places like the Grand Canyon.

 

[Darkhorse]

Being someone who wants to go to mountainous areas AND places like the Grand Canyon, AND wanting to take more portraits like the ones above, I think that the 100 may suit me better.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I got my 100 on ebay a couple yrs ago for $60. If you're patient, they come up that cheap fairly often, and the 200mm is also usually less than $100 so you can eventually get both without spending too much. The 85 normally costs over $300; I only have one because I got LUCKY and found one on Craigslist for $50 (yeah.. $50!) when I lived in New Mexico.

 

[oscroft]

I'll second the 100/2.8. It's a really great lens - I'll try to dig out some shots from it (no portraits though). I got mine for about £40 (about $60). It's sharper than the 85/2, and I think a bit more contrasty too (I only got my 85 quite recently and haven't had a chance to compare the two directly yet).

Cheers,

 

[wray]

One from yesterday. Om2, 50mm f1.4 silver nose.

 

[pagpow]

but results I've seen from the 200 have been very good. However, the f/4 is somewhat uncommon.

is this true? I had always assumed that the f5 was less common than the f4 from the frequency with which they showed up on the bay but haven't seen a production figures. Wrong?

 

[Darkhorse]

I assumed the ƒ4 was common, too. Anyway, I'm already eying a 100 on the 'bay.

 

[Igor.Burshteyn]

don't disregard al'good 135mm f2.8 for portraits, it's great - plenty sharp, great colors, good bokeh. The only issue I have with mine - it's too long for me (I prefer to stay within 50mm). It costs pennies for what it is - I got mine mint for $40.

 

[shadowfox]

Gear: OM-3 with 35mm 1:2 Zuiko

And I didn't eat the fish.

 

[Aurelius]

At the stables

At the stables

OM-2 and 35/2.8

btw this combo (note the hidden Olympus logo):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/99413716@N00/3741899065/

and Fuji Neopan 400 at 800