It was cheaper?
Never used the 2.8 version - but I seem to remember an earlier discussion
that claimed that the 55BB (2.5/55mm filter) version was better. Making no
claims yet. I note, however, that it has 10 aperture blades...
Subsitute "I have heard.." for "I believe..."
AndrewF
(also a voigt fan).
>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.
>
< 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 >
|