Boy do I know what you mean what you mean by empty wallet and full cabinet! :)
I am thinking in terms of the 135/telescoping tube combo as well. I am trying to
come up with the 'ultimate' combo for field macro work. (Yea I know - RIGHT!)
One thing that is attractive about the 90 f2 is that I still have good working
distance and could get by w/o extension tubes in most cases. On the other hand,
if I AM going to carry the telescoping extension tube than the 135 might make
some sense. Or maybe I will go back to the good old days of the 35-70 f3.5~4.5
with a single extension tube, took some fine flower portraits with that combo.
Ah choices, choices, choices!
Jim Couch
Skip Williams wrote:
> First my take on the 90/2 vs 85/2. The 90/2 is quite a brute of a lens, and
> not one I'd take just anywhere. The 85/2, as Tom pointed out, is VERY
> compact and produces very nice images. Both would be the "easiest"
> solution. I just got my 85/2 about 4 weeks ago, and I'm very pleased.
>
> SNIP
> Third, I was playing around with the 135/4.5 & Auto-Tube last week and I was
> surprised at the versatility of that combo. You get a macro with a very
> large working distance, which is good for insects. And you get a general
> purpose 135, which I used for a few portraits wide open (no slides back yet
> though). The downside is that the combo is very heavy and bulky.
> Skip
>
< 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 >
|