The reason I like using lenses of this focal length is that it gets me closer to places that i can't get to normally. Take the image above, I was not able to get all that close to it and the 135 brought it to me. I saw what I wanted to get and this was the perfect lens for it. I also had the 100 f2.8 with me but that didn't get quite what I was after. I'm just wondering if the 135 f3.5 would have gotten me the same image. Probably not quite but it would be damn close. The perspective would have been the same but what about the aperture and that fern in the background.

Note the shallow DOF in this image. The pistils are sharp but the rest of the flower is not. That takes some skill to get on the first shot (which I didn't by the way). It took me around 5 attempts to get what I wanted. I took so many frames because I really wasn't sure I had the shot after looking at the images on the LCD. That's one reason I also don't delete the images in camera. You really can't tell what you have until you download them onto your PC/Notebook and look at them closely.

I wouldn't have thought that the depth-of-field would change much between the 135 f3.5 and the 135 f2.8 but I find them worlds apart. It's much easier to nail the focus with the f3.5 lens. But when you do nail it with the f2.8 then it is very sharp and the rendition is great. I think the E-PL1 is one of the best cameras Olympus released in this category because I just like the images so much. Many will disagree with me on this point, but everyone is entitled to his / her opinion I suppose.

The Olympus 135 f2.8 isn't my first f2.8 lens of this length. I have the Minolta 135 f2.8 and that is quite heavy. The OM 135 f2.8 is quite a bit larger than the 135 f3.5 which I also have and dind it quite pleasing to shoot with. My only problem with this one is balancing it ont he Olympus E-PL1 which is my favourite m4/3 camera for manual focus lenses. I must admit the OM 135 f3.5 is much better on this camera.

When people say an image shows a 3D effect, I think this image above is what it's all about. You get background separation and a feeling that you can actually see around the image. Of course, this isn't possible because all images are actually 2D. It's just the effect that some lenses will give you and I find that most of the Olympus OM lenses give great rendition and a very pleasing image.

I like these type of shots and they are really not difficult to orchestrate. Just stop your lens down a couple of stops and focus the the top of the flowers. Be aware however that I sometimes underestimate how narrow the depth-of-field is with these longer lenses (35mm equivelent = 200mm) so aperture bracket these shots around what you think is the correct aperture setting.

The longer the lens the harder it is to get acurate manual focus. That's the way it is with me anyway. Take this image above. I was  about 2 meters away and trying to get the focus directly on the tip of the leaf. Did I succeed? Well, yes and no. Part of the tip is in focus and a little out of focus. I thought I'd nailed this one but the slightest movement on your part will render some part on the focus area out of focus. What I'm trying to say is, the depth-of-field is so narrow that if you want to go for these images a tripod is the best way to go.

Sometimes depth-of-field doesn't really matter in an image and the one above is, for me, one of those occations. Taken wide open at f2.8 I was looking at how the light was falling on the front of this plant. That was what I wanted to show. I knew I had enough separation between the reeds in the front and those further back. I think it was the only time during the outing that this happened.