ALEXSCIFI@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> I have the 100F2.0 but not the 90F2.0. Your comments suggest the 90
> because the 90 will be much more corrected (sharper) in the close up range
> than the 100F2.0 beyond the 1:5 range of the 100F2.0 (.7 meters) because of
> the floating element correction (used by both). Putting the 100F2.0 on
> extension tubes disables it's ability to correct in that range. If your use
> of real close macro is infrequent, then using a double element close-up lens
> (both Canon and Leica made 55mm versions) is perhaps the better way to go
> with the 100F2.0. Moreover you still have the 50F3.5 to cover the 1:2 through
> 1:5 range(I have the 3.5 also).
>
> However, for traveling with the simplest possible system perhaps the 90
> is the way to go.
>
> By the way, does anyone know the weight difference between the 2?
>
> Alex
>
I have the 90mm, and I love it. IMHO it is superb for what it was built for:
Macro and close-up. It gives more working distance than the 50mm, which is
helpful when shooting insects and other shy subjects. It is also fine as a
general purpose short tele, but on the heavy side compared to the good ole
85mm. If the 100mm F2 is sharper, it must be truely awesome.
I have never had the pleasure of trying the 100mm F2, so I can not really
compare the two.
As for weight of the two: 100mmF:2 520 gram, 90mm F:2 550 gram. 30 gram penalty
to the 90mm.
Regards
Lars
--
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 >
|