I agree. I borrowed a zuiko 90mm (never would buy one at those prices), for the
same testing idea. I found my Tokina 90mm performed substantially better at
close, macro, and far distances.
Larry
Albert wrote:
> 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 >
< 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 >
|