I'm tempted by the Zuiko macro lenses, specifically the 50/2 and
90/2, and to a lesser extent by the 50/3.5 (?), etc.
I gather that people feel the 90/2 is the best, followed closely by
the 50/2, and then opinion becomes more diffuse.
Anyway, what is the pecking order, and why?
And, what's a good price for used examples of same, as a function of
condition?
Thanks,
Joe Gwinn
It depends, like everything else, on what you plan to do with it. All
three are very good lenses. If used in macro mode on a tripod then
the 90 gives you a little more working distance than the 50s. Good
for skittish, mobile subjects. With the 3.5 you will learn which
apertures produce the best images which can be as good as those from
the other two. With the other two lenses which aperture you use is
less critical. All can be used for very sharp general use
photography, but the 3.5 is limiting for this purpose because of its
slowness, but you should be able to find a good one for less than
$200. The 90 is big and heavy which is a consideration when traveling
and it is very expensive. My 50/2 is usually in my bag no matter
where I go or how light I go.
--
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 >
|