Let's start out with my obvious conclusion. You need them both.
They are just such different animals. If you want the least investment with
the most value, sell the 85/2 and get the 90/2. There is very little,
photo-wise, if anything, that the 85/2 can do that the 90/2 can't.
It's the intangibles that make them both valuable in your kit. For instance,
here's the specs (with the 50/1.4 for comparison).
85/2 - 260g - 46mm long - 60mm diameter - 49mm
filter
90/2 - 550g - 71mm long - 72mm diameter - 55mm
filter
50/1.4 - 230g - 40mm long - 60mm diameter - 49mm filter
So, the 90 is more than twice as heavy, about 900nger and 20% bigger
diameter. The 85/2 on the other hand, is within minimal tolerances from a
50/1.4.
That's the biggest difference. There are a lot of situations when I am
carrying a kit that the 85/2 makes it and the 90/2 doesn't. If there's a
potential for macro work, the 90/2 is there, no question. Otherwise, the
85/2 goes. Come fall, when basketball starts, the 85/2 will get a workout.
Fast, light, medium telephoto -- just perfect.
So, if you can swing it, keep'em both.
Tom
50/3.5 - 200g - 40mm long - 61mm diameter - 49mm filter
So you can have your macro cake and save 90 grams carrying the 85/2
and the 50/3.5 over just the 90/2. If you usually carry normal lens
then then you also save another 230g, although in that case I would
opt for the 50/2 which is a little heavier than the 3.5. Tom is right
though. It is the intangibles. I know he loves the 90/2 and I
probably would too if I had one. I really love my 50/2.
Winsor
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
< 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 >
|