To add to Olaf's remarks, the 90/2 is optimized for 1:10 magnification (M),
although it will provide professionally sharp results out to 1:2 M. The
100/2 is optimized for best performance at infinity; so any fair comparison
as to which lens is sharper than the other must compare these lenses at
their optimal performance settings.
I own the 90/2 macro and use it for everything I would use the 100/2 for. I
sold my 180/2 to Mr. Tom Scales (who else!?! ;-) ) and have been pondering
picking up a 100/2. I also own the Zuiko B-300 1.7X teleconverter (really a
Galileo telescope) and pair it with the 90/2 to yield a 153/2.5 macro optic.
With the 100/2-B-300 combo, I would have a 170/2.5 optic which is a little
better replacement for the 180/2 than the 90/2-B-300 combo, plus it's
lighter, shorter & cheaper than the 180/2 to boot.
So depending on your photographic subject priorities, there is quite a way
to go with either combination.
Regards,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Olaf Greve" <o.greve@xxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 12:26 AM
Subject: RE: [OM] your experience with 2,0/90 macro?
> 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|