At 08:32 AM 5/5/00 -0700, Mark Marr-Lyon wrote:
> >Talking about 90/2, which is a lens that can nicely balance between
> >distance object and 1:2 but it does not really perform very well at
> >macro mode, with my own experience and the result from Modern
> >photography, it is only a so so lens for macro works. For serious
> >macro, you should try 50/3.5 or 80/4.
> >
> >C.H.Ling
>
>Hmm, interesting. I guess with all the raves about the 90/2, I had
>assumed it was an excellent macro lens too (what with "macro" being
>in the lens name and all). Anyway, that is very good to know!
Mark:
Before you go writing off the 90/2.0 Zuiko, check out Gary Reese's lens tests
at:
http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
Gary's tests of the 90 indicate that many of the softness problems may be
attributable to camera shake, rather than inherent limitations of the lens
itself. Perhaps Gary could comment more. From my own experience, the 90/2.0
is an exceptional macro lens (though like all lenses designed this way, it's
truly optimized at about the 1:10 reproduction ratio, although it goes as close
as 1:2). There's no doubt in my mind that a specialized macro lens like the
80/4.0 would outdo it, but then the 80/4.0 isn't as versatile, either.
Garth
"A bad day doing photography is better
than a good day doing just about
anything else."
The Unofficial Olympus Web Photo Gallery at:
http://www.taiga.ca/~gallery/
< 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 >
|