John Hudson wrote:
>
> I recently signed onto this list and look forward to the conversation. I
> also recently acquired the following pieces of experienced Olympus
> equipment: OM 4T body, 28mm / 2.8, 50mm / 1.4, and 100mm / 2.8
>
> ......I am also looking to get the 50mm / f3.5 macro and would appreciate
> any comments pro and con as to its performance. I have been told that there
> is an Olympus non-bellows 90mm / f2 macro. Is that true and how does it
> compare with the 50mm / f3.5 macro?
>
> I have been a Leica M3 plus 35/50/90/135 user since the mid 1960s but
> decided to find a SLR as well. After much investigation the OM 4T looked
> like a pretty safe bet and I have not been disapointed. This Olympus brand
> looks like a well kept secret with superior results!
>
> jh
>
Hi John,
Welcome to the list.
I am the happy owner of both the 50mm f:3.5 and the 90mm f:2 macro
lenses. Both are IMHO very fine lenses, each with its own virtues.
The 50mm is very compact and light, which means it goes with me almost
anywhere. The only problem is that the short focal length may give
too little distance to the subject. Insects tend to flee if you are
not very careful. Flowers stay put.
The 90mm remedies (some of) the problem with the subject distance,
but is a lot heavier, so I tend to use it as a more specialized
macro lens (I also own a 85mm f2, which is better suited for general
field use.)
I have never done any formal testing of the optical quality of these
lenses, I leave that to Gary Reese, but both have delivered optically
excellent results.
Regards
Lars
(Suffering from rampant Zuikoholism)
--
Lars Haven <mailto:lhaven@xxxxxxxxxxxx> http://isa.dknet.dk/~lhaven
"When writing about women, one must dip one's pen in a rainbow"
D. Diderot
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|