Hi Walt,
I once had both the 90F2.0 Macro and 100F2.0 OM lenses. While, I found
no obvious differences in their respective optical performance, the
distinctly smaller 100F2.0 was the lens I decided to keep and sold the
bigger 90. A few years later, I found myself plunging deep into
macro--seriously shooting flowers and butterflies and such for the first
time in my life. Along the way, I acquired a Vivitar Series 1 90F2.5.
However, while the 90 is very sharp, there is still "something" that the
100F2.0 does better. I will be interested in your observations of the OM and
Tamron 90s.
fast_primes
From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx>
The new 90/2 Zuiko macro arrived yesterday. It is impressive.
And it's going to be interesting to see over the next few weeks
whether all the hype and hoopla I've heard here about this lens is
true or not. I also have a Tamron 90/2.8 macro, and there's going
to be at least a roll or two of Provia 100F shot with these two
lenses going head-to-head. Of course, I except the Zuiko to be
better, but just exactly how much and whether it's worth crowing
about remains to be seen.
One early observation, though, assuming that the Zuiko doesn't
just totally blow the Tamron away, is that when toting the gear
more than a few hundred yards away from the SUV, the Tamron will
most likely be the lens going along while the Zuiko stays securely
locked away in the Toyota OM-4Runner. Why? Well, the Tamron
weighs about half what the Zuiko does, goes to 1:1 all by itself,
and if it gets dropped over a cliff or eaten by a bear, it will
cost about a third as much to replace.
Expect a full and objective report sometime in the not too distant
future.
Walt
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
< 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 >
|