That makes sense. I think 135mm is often too long (in door) for candid portraits. The 105mm is more convenient to use.
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 30. juni 2004 16:29 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: off-brand lenses they didn't make 28,135, and 200 were the standard optional lenses for amateurs. The sold by the millions. Other focal lengths only sold by the thousands. It is simply where the market was in the 60's and 70's. Interestingly 85/90 tended to be European focal lengths, and 100/105 tended to be Japanese. I never did figure the why of that one out. Though to me the 100/105 has always been a substitute for an 85/90 and a 135 combination. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Everybody and his dog made a 135/2.8. Apparently this was a VERY popular > focal length at one time. 200/3.5s are almost as common. Perhaps the > apparent diversity is simply the same design with a lot of different names > on it, but it's still striking. I find it a bit odd because Pentax and > Nikon, at least, have always made good 135s and 200s at reasonable prices. > Why did all the third parties think they could sell these particular > focal lengths? -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
