I have both too, and most of the time the 50/2 works best for close-up work
for me - simply because I'm often hand holding and the 50/2 doesn't require
as high a shutter speed for equivalent shake suppression. It isn't very
often, unless photographing live animals, that I feel I need the extra
camera to subject distance.
I did have a 50/3.5 once, and was very happy with it's pictures, but the
nearly 2 stops extra light coming in through the 50/2 sure helps with
focusing.
Chip Stratton
cstrat@xxxxxxxxx
> Through the generosity of a fellow list member, I am now the
> proud owner of
> an awfully nice 50/2 macro. As most of you know, I also own the
> 90/2 which
> is one of my favorite lenses.
>
> I guess I am interested in the opinions of those that have used both. I
> love the 90/2, but this 50/2 seems like a real winner. The first thing I
> noticed is how much smaller and lighter it is than the 90/2. It is still
> bigger than the 50/1.2, but not by that much.
>
> So, what's the real benefit of one over the other?
>
> Tom
< 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 >
|