Re: [OM] 100/2 vs 90/2

[John Prosper]

>From: "Dave Bulger"

>Zuiks,

>

>I've got both the Zuiko 90/2 and the 100/2. Other than 10mm, what is the

>100/2 giving me that the 90/2 doesn't, other than the warm, fuzzy feeling

>instigated by that wiiiide expanse of front element glass on the 100/2? Is

>there any significant difference in picture quality, bokeh, etc?

 

The 100/2 is optimized for best performance at infinity: the 90/2 is optimized for 1:10 lifesize.  The 100/2 has a minimum focus of 0.7 meters (2.3 feet): the 90/2's minimum focus is 0.4 m (1.3 ft).  Both employ floating elements for correction against close-focus aberrations.  Both also include nine aperture blades (along with the 180/2, 250/2, & 350/2.8) for great, romantic bokeh.

 

Use the 100/2 for far-focus exposures where it will have a slight edge over the 90/2.  The 90/2 is best utilized for near-focus shots, although the 100/2's performance at near-focus isn't bad at all.  I am not sure if there will be a discernable difference in sharpness for middle-focus exposures.  If you use the B300 telephoto adapter (for the Olympus IS-3) with the 90/2, you get a 153/2.5 macro lens (based on the info given by list members who have this adapter).  The 100/2 with the B300 will yield a 170/2.5 close-focusing optic.

 

I have the 90/2, and it is my most versatile non-zoom lens, along with the 50/1.8.  I will probably target the 35-80/2.8 next, although a 250/2 or 350/2.8 wouldn't be bad either.  However, things are tight for me financially right now; so photo hardware will have to wait. ;-)

---

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

< 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 >