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.

It was a terrible day, grey and wet (typical when I fnd some time to get out). There wasn't much light and hardly any colour outside. Inside, where most of these images were taken was even worse. I noticed immediately that I was struggling to get a nice sharp image. Tripods are not allowed and even using a monopod is very difficult in these places because the walkways are really narrow and you tend to get in the way of other people. I now don't take any extra equipment with me during these outings and it is sorely missed at times.

Most of these images were taken at f2.8 or f4. Lighting was terrible and I had to take at least 3 to 5 images of all my subjects. I don't know about you but I find it impossible to tell if an image is sharp or not when reviewing the images on the LCD. It's just too small. Small movement when taking the shot cannot be seen and I tend not to delete any images in-camera. I just wait until I get home and look at them on the montor. SD cards are really cheap these days and I just take a handful with me when I go out. They don't really increase the weight you have to carry around with you.