Hi,
First off: the advice that has been given so far has already been pretty
complete. The 100/2 is my very favourite lens, it's an absolutely beautiful
lens for lots of purposes, but particularly so for portrait work. Put the
lens on an extension tube, and it will easily perform (almost?) as well as
the 90/2 for macro purposes. I can't attest to the 90/2, as I have never
owned one, but at least the 100/2 is one of those very nice lenses, dunno,
but there's something magical about it. :)
The "personal preference" part of Tom's reply may need to be a bit
elaborated: the look and feel of these two lenses is not the same. Also,
some people that have owned both lenses say that for X reason they like the
90/2 better than the 100/2, whereas about equally many owners of the both of
them have written that for Y reason they like the 100/2 better than the
90/2.
As a rough guideline, I would suggest the following: If the majority of the
shots you plan to take with this lens are portraits, go for the 100/2, OTOH,
if the majority will be close-up work, go for the 90/2.
Finally: where cheaper alternatives are concerned, I am not aware of too
many inexpensive alternatives for a 100/2 (of course there's the 100/2.8,
but that's a stop slower). Regarding the 90/2 I believe there are more
alternatives (be they perhaps not F2 either). Albert and Tom have already
mentioned some good ones, but Larry is very knowledgeable on this topic as
well, so perhaps he has some further suggestions for you.
Cheers!
Olafo
< 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 >
|