Hi John,
> 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.
Definitely. A further thing to note, is that the 100/2 does have a close focus
floating element group, which assures very good performance at a 1:5
magnification ratio as well.
> 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.
Very interesting uses indeed! One thing though: IIRC the closest focussing
distance is changed by using this type of teleconverter (multiply by 1.7x or
so?!?), if this is indeed the case, then how does this work out for the
macro/close-up range for these lenses?
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 >
|