Post Pics From Your OM

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
 
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.

kellytx1.jpg


kellytx2.jpg


kellytx3.jpg


kellytx4.jpg
 
Darkhorse said:
Thanks. Yep, it was taken with my little 50. I'd love that 85mm but it's still pretty pricey.
Click to expand...

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.

grandpa_4-28-07_num1.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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,
 
Trius said:
but results I've seen from the 200 have been very good. However, the f/4 is somewhat uncommon.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • AA_0_G028_crop.jpg
    AA_0_G028_crop.jpg
    31.6 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom