If I find one for $250, then I'll have two <g>. It's really that good (in
my opinion). Even my little girls (7 and 8) think it is pretty cool,
although they focus more on bugs and I focus more on flowers.
Honestly, though, the 50/3.5 is one pretty nice little lens. Much, much
cheaper and so small and light. I've been using the 90/2 a lot, but have
decided to start carrying the 50/3.5 on a body. I do almost all my shooting
outdoors, so the 3.5 isn't a big deal.
There are just too many choices.
> Tom Scales scribed:
> >I can't share any 38/2.8 experiences. One passed through my hands, but I
> >didn't use it enough. I thought, however, that another fine lens to
> >consider is the 90/2 Macro. My single favorite lens.
>
> I always forget about that lens since it's not listed in my copy of "The
OM
> System Lens Handbook". Nonetheless, perhaps I *should* forget about it
> considering that yours is listed as "never sell- don't ask" and the KEH
> price on a used one is $725US. Still, you're not the first listee to
> mention this lens as a favorite. If you find one for me for about
> $250-$300....... <g>
>
< 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 >
|