At 02:05 PM 2/10/2003 +0800, you wrote:
"Richard F. Man" wrote:
>
> At 08:42 PM 2/9/2003 -0800, R. Jackson wrote:
> >Anyone own one of these and want to comment on it? I'm just kind of
> >curious as to what the consensus is on this lens.
> >...
>
> It's overpriced comparing to the Tamron 90/2.5 and Tokina 90/2.5, but if
> you have it, you will probably never want to let it go.
>
Can't agree it is overpriced, you should know the same lens from
original manufacturer is usually double the one from third party, it
is true since 1980 to now. And a lens of larger aperture (0.5 to one
stop) will double the price again (or even more). See the price of
28/2 and 28/2.8 and 24/2 and 24/2.8, 100/2 and 100/2.8, they are more
than double! That means it should be at least four time the price of a
Tamron or Tokina, roughly say $700 is a fair price. BTW, who have a
90/2 macro on earth?
C.H.Ling
The 90/2 goes to 1:2, so it is a fairly conservative macro lens. I have a
Vivitar 100/2.8 that goes 1:1. It is possibly more versatile as a macro,
but it is softer wide open and very long and unwieldy when fully
extended. Which is fine for macro, but the 90/2 gets used for lots of
other things too, even portraiture and general photography.
It has both good sharpness and contrast, but it is neither the sharpest nor
contrastiest Zuiko. Some function of these two qualities, combined with
the focal length, makes photos with shallow DOF usually look very
attractive, as the sharp area sits against the sometimes rather creamy blur
of the background (usually the background, but sometimes the foreground --
see my TOPE entry under the category of "Bokeh"). This conjunction of
focal length, blur, and sharpness is what people refer to as the "bokeh" of
the 90/2.
Recanting my slur of the blur,
Joel W.
< 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 >
|