Hmmm..... I don't know what exactly you are shooting, but I have found, for myself, that shooting with a prime is quicker (if that is important) than using a zoom because of there is one less control to deal with. I have had various 70-210 ish zooms and found that generally a plain 135 is more useful. That said, I don't have any experience with any of the lenses you mention, except the M135/3.5, which I've found to be a very good candid/general purpose lens.
William in Utah. 10/1/2002 12:58:43 PM, "Łukasz Kacperczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Here's another one - I'm quite active on the asking front now :) > >Here's my dilemma - M 135/3.5, M 75-150/4, or a VS1 70-210/3.5 (the first >and bigger one). I would use them on an MX or a Super A body. I will shoot >in B&W (hence the ease/cost [not that i would buy anything now] of the use >of filters as one of the factors). > >135/3.5 - because it's small and I wouldn't have to mount a winder on my >cameras to easily handhold it, plus it's a prime; >75-150/4 - because of its versatility and lightweight; > >Both the above lenses have the same filter ring diameter, so I could use my >two new (will buy them tomorrow :) Rodenstock filters I would use on my >other two lenses - the M 50/1.7 and the M 28/2.8. Also, they both focus down >to about 1m. I have a very nice hood for my 135/3.5. > >VS1 70-210/3.5 - because it's the longest of the three; on the bad side - I >have no filters for it, no lenshood; I would have to mount a winder to at >least dream of handholding a shot below 1/500; it only focuses down to 2m. > >Weight is not a big issue (at least as far as carrying the stuff in the bag >is concerned, I'm not sure about my neck :) > >Now it's your turn. Thanks in advance. > >Łukasz > > >
