The 85/2 " incorporates a floating element group for the first time in
the world for a telephoto, ensuring superior image quality even at close
distances.", while the 100/2.8 does not, so the 100/2.8 is not
theoretically as well suited for use with extension tubes as the 85/2. I
have no practical experience from which to compare the 2, as I use my
macro lenses for macro work. Guess I could try the 85/2 with tubes vs.
the Tamron 90/2.5 and Kiron 105/2.8, but tubes are a hassle compared to
direct focusing and I'd rather take pictures of things I like than test
subjects.
Moose
Jim Couch wrote:
Another option to consider is an extension tube. If you are not doing
flat copy work, an extension tube and the 100/2.8 might suprise you. I
recently sold my Tamron 2.5 after comparing the results with my 85 f/2
and an extension tube. For flowers, ect that I do the 85/ext combo
works very well. It is also lighter and more compact than the Tamron was.
< 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 >
|