While that might be true for your set of lenses, I happen to believe
that it depends sometimes on which "batch" you get. The Tokina 90mmf2.5
is a serious performer, I put it up against everything, and it more then
held it's own.
I got this from the OM list archives... Take it for what it's worth..
Albert.
At macro resolution (1:2)
Olympus 90mm f2 Tokina 90mm f2.5
l/mm /(contrast% 30 l/mm) l/mm(contrast)
f center corner f center corner
2 40/(30) 36/(25)
2.8 45/(47) 36/(30) 2.5 64/(55) 57/(49)
4 45/(69) 36/(43) 4 72/(67) 64/(54)
5.6 45/(68) 40/(45) 5.6 81/(68) 72/(59)
8 51/(60) 40/(50) 8 81/(62) 72/(60)
11 45/(54) 40/(42) 11 64/(62) 57/(55)
16 40/(48) 36/(40) 16 51/(52) 40/(52)
22 40/(33) 36/(27) 22 45/(45) 32/(42)
32 - - 32 36/(31) 29/(24)
I think you didn't have the 90/2, I have bought a mint (yes, true mint)
Tokina 90/2.5 some months ago just for testing. Side by side compare with
the 90/2 at F5.6, the Zuiko just perform better at both close and distance
objects.
C.H.Ling
< 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 >
|