Sorry for any confusion. I was referring to the series of lenses
designed specifically and primarily for macro work with the bellows and
65-116.
The 80/4 and the 90/2 were designed with different criteria. The 80/4 is
design is optimized for the 0.5x~2x magnification range and won't even
focus out to infinity in ordinary use.
The 135/4.5 is the next step from the 80/4 in the macrophoto lenses. It
also requires the auto tube or bellows It does focus out to infinity,
unlike the other short mount lenses
The 90/2 is basically a short tele lens with elements that move relative
to the other elements in order to maintain sharpness at close focus
distances.
Both the 90/2 and 135/4/5 list a range of magnification from 0.5x to
infinity, but Oly's descriptions are interestingly different, the 135
emphasizing macro and the 90 emphasing speed and flexibility over a
broad range.
135/4.5: "This high resolution macro lens is used with the Telescopic
Auto Tube 65~116 or Auto Bellows to provide long working distances
(37cm-infinity) and minimize perspective deformations in close-ups (max.
magnification 0.5x)."
90/2: A medium telephoto macro lens with a magnification range from 1/2
life size to infinity.
With an F2 aperture the brightest lens in its class, featuring superb
resolution at macro distances and excellent performance even with
subjects at infinity.
Provides a working distance of 0.24m at the minimum focus of 0.40m
assuring extra freedom in lighting, selecting the camera position, etc.
Despite the bright lens, the extremely compact, lightweight design
affords outstanding functionality.
The exclusive Olympus focus aberration correction mechanism guarantees
first class picture sharpness all the way from minimum focus to infinity.
All that theoretical stuff about design intent aside, the 90/2 is a
later design (at least 10 yrs) benefitting from later technology and may
well equal or surpass the 135/4.5 at a particular magnification and/or
with a particular subject. They are certainly a dead heat in Gary's lens
tests. Both lenses have adherents on the list who wax lyrical about
their special qualities. One feature of the 135 of special note for
macro work is the diaphram which goes to f45, vs. f22 for the 90.
Performance clearly deteriorates at the smallest apertures, but critical
DOF is available. Looks good to me at f32.
With an excellent 105/2.8 lens that goes from infinity to 1x (1:1), I
was most interested in added working distance (and checking out the
legendary bokeh and '3-D look'), so the 135/4.5 is what I got.
Moose
Giles wrote:
Was it definitely the 135 and not the 90/2? I did a comparison
between the 80/4 and 90/2. If it was the 135 then I must have missed
that during a hiatus from the list.
< 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 >
|