At 20:56 1/5/02, Richard asked wrote:
All these talks about 85/2 etc., how do they compare to the 90/2?
p.s. I think I read somewhere that there are some 85/2 that are not so
good. Are they written by heretics?
[snip]
Yes, they're authored by heretical 90/2 owners envious of those who
successfully use the smaller/lighter 85/2 with extension tubes.
Seriously:
The lens was likely reformulated from the original. Within the range of
literature there, 4E/5G and 5E/6G formulation descriptions are found within
the range of literature. I recommend the later multi-coated version. The
lens has a floating element for close distance correction which has worked
very well for me. The comments you've seen or heard about are likely
confounded with the early SC version and the later MC version. As well as
the combination of 85/2 with the OM 7/14/25mm tubes or Vivitar 12/20/36mm
tubes has worked for me I've never felt the need to pursue the 90/2 macro
(which, BTW, *is* an outstanding lens).
-- John
< 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 >
|