Just a note...
Your quick test results are interesting. I haven't yet been able to a
detailed image performance comparison of the 100/2 and the 90/2 Macro yet,
but....
In my own preliminary tests the effective aperature of the 90/2 macro was
3/4 stop!! slower (relative to F/2 of the 85/2 which agrees with the f/2 of
the 50/1.2 MC) and the 100/2 was about 1/2 slow, even though physical
measurement of the front elements indicated them both to be f/2 by strict
definition. Sometimes the ED glass tranmission or the # air to glass
surfaces (18 with the 90/2Macro) has a negative impact on overall lens
system tranmission and lowers the effective aperture. In any case the 100/2
has slightly better light collection efficiency than the 90/2 Macro.
At 10:33 AM 10/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi Folks,
>
> I am amending the "package" aspect which was silly in the first place,
>and lowering the prices to $550 for the 90, and $150 for the 55.
>
> I bought this set to primary run the 90 against my 100. A quick
>subjective read showed them to be almost indistinguishable. However, I
prefer
>the 100 in ergonomic terms. The 55F1.2 was surprisingly sharp, without of
>focus images rendered very smoothly. I would rate both lenses with a 9 at
>least. I'm asking 800 for the pair. In terms of references, I've done
>extensive business with Gary Reese.
>
> Please contact me offline, if interested.
>
>Alex
>
>< 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 >
>
Kurt Hurley IDS 2000 Product Marketing Manager
Schlumberger T&T - Diagnostic Systems
1601 Technology Drive San Jose CA 95110
email khurley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PH 408-437-5156 FAX 408-437-9031 PG 408-699-4587
< 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 >
|