I have yet to hear convincing argument about the alleged superiority
of the 90/2.5. The only evidence so far is hearsay from Larry
(forgive me if you made a stronger case Larry which I missed).
I hold no brief for Tamron or for the 90/2.8 except that I have one.
I bought it some years after Amateur Photographer sang the lens'
praises as a worth successor to the 90/2.5 - if I remember correctly.
I have used it with great pleasure and success IMO (I would say that
wouldn't I :>)) and I am happy with it. Well, not so happy that I
would not sell it for a Voigtländer 125 Macro...
So AndrewF. Where's your evidence that your 90mm is better than mine :>) ?
Chris
Whoops, yes - #01F, not 10F! My 90mm/2.5 is coded 52BB and has the 55mm
filter ring. Snagged it with the extension tube, caps and hood for US$100 -
almost unmarked :)
Haven't used it with the tube or the 2X yet - first attempt at macro I
messed up depth of field. Nice portrait lens but! The early version has a
49mm filter ring. There is a later version - 90/2.8 which goes to 1:1
without the extension tube but I believe it isn't as sharp. That version
also comes in AF versions.
The 18F is 44mm long! - with an internal diameter of 39mm although with a
couple of masking projections. Big enough to put a tripod mount on it -
same one that fits the 300/5.6 and some long zooms.
AndrewF
--
<|_:-)_|>
C M I Barker
Cambridgeshire, England.
+44 (0)7092 251126
mailto:imagopus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
... a nascent photo library.
< 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 >
|